S&W 686 vs. Ruger GP100

[Bobhwry]

Both are good guns but I like the trigger on the Smith better, but I think if you put a Wolf spring kit on the Ruger it will equal the Smith.

 

[dillonuser]

I selected the 686 assuming "pre-lock" based on what I prefer to shoot. I also have a GP100. The best trigger is on the 686. But,as Bobhwry stated "both are good guns", I agree 100%. It all depends on the shooters preferences.

 

[Rinspeed]

I prefer the 686 but the GP100 is a great revolver. I wouldn't say the Ruger is stronger than the S&W.

 

[miko]

Can you quantify your supposid superior strength of a forged receiver or is this a wive's tale you're reciting?

My mother, not my wife is a metallurgical engineer in our family, but the fact that steel forgings are stronger than steel castings, due to changes in grain structure is pretty-much common knowledge.

Investment casting is as old as the Egyptians and it produces very strong castings…

Very strong - yes. Stronger than forgings – no.

The GP100 is entirely different, as was the Security Six, in that it has no side plate. The frame is stronger just as a single action's frame is stronger with no side plate.

Stronger in some respects – maybe. Stronger where it matters – not necessarily.
The forces causing the frame stretch during the shot are concentrated around and above the cylinder axis.
The strength of frame way below the cylinder matters much, much less than the strength of frame immediately around the cylinder – especially the top strap. The weakest link determines the breakage point and if the top strap gives, it does not matter how strong the side-plate area is.

I am sure both guns are equal to the task but I would never believe the claims of one being stronger (whichever one) until I see the results of scientific tests. Get a dozen of each, shoot a few thousands hottest rounds – fast bullets, heavy bullets, etc, then examine the breakages, measure the frame stretch, etc.
If some ammo manufacturers are recommending certain guns for their ammo, they might have done similar tests. But I have seen nothing published in that respect.

miko

 

[defiant73a]

While it's not exactly the same thing as "strength," revolversmiths will unhesitantly tell you that a Smith & Wesson (particularly one shot with heavy loads) will develop timing and endshake problems far earlier and far more often than a Ruger.

When it comes time to develop and test heavy loads there are good experienced-based reasons why companies like CorBon and Double Tap choose the GP100 over S&W.

 

[Boats]

There is no point being logical about this topic because no matter how much evidence is marshalled that the more modern, more problem free design is not the S&W, the 686 fan boys will still sling crap that they didn't get taken for more money in exchange for the lesser revolver.

 

[navajo]

which

686. Why? Because I don't have a GP 100 for comparison.
I have owned many Ruger single actions and loved them all.

 

[miko]

There is no point being logical about this topic because no matter how much evidence is marshalled that the more modern, more problem free design is not the S&W, the 686 fan boys will still sling crap that they didn't get taken for more money in exchange for the lesser revolver.

That's BS.

I chose S&W 686+ because I knew it was strong enough to handle the job and held 16.6% more of ammo. That's quite a modern feature - using CNC to divide a circle into 7 rather than 6...

Then I paid good money for m66 that is nowhere as strong as even 686.

Then I bought m60 that is even flimsier.

Then I paid a fortune for an aluminum 340.

Then I paid even more for a plastic H&K P2000 .

Raw strength is not the only consideration that people use. The alledged strength advantage of Ruger when shootng huge quantities of specific high-power ammo are merely of academic interest to most of us.

A person for whom that matter would already be an expert and he would not be here asking advice on which gun to buy.
There is a lot of hype surrounding Ruger - which is a fine gun, no question about it.

miko

 

[Marshall]

Raw strength is not the only consideration that people use. The alledged strength advantage of Ruger when shootng huge quantities of specific high-power ammo are merely of academic interest to most of us.

Guess I'm not most of us. And by the way, the Ammo manufactures don't say you can use a S&W as long as you don't shoot huge quantities. They are very specific.

A person for whom that matter would already be an expert and he would not be here asking advice on which gun to buy.

Respectfully, this is an outrageous statement and one that shows someone is stretching for something to make a point with.

This question could matter to anyone and everyone buying a revolver that could potentially want to shoot this type of ammo and comply with Ammo Manufacturers disclaimers when using their heavy loads, today or 10 years from now. A smart person asks this question in advance, just as this poster is doing. Maybe someone doesn't plan on shooting these types of loads today but wants a gun that is able to do so with no ill effects after they become more practiced. For you to suggest that this would only apply to experts is ridiculous and just flat wrong.

No one is cutting down your 686+, there's no need to become so defensive. Maybe you're just questioning your decision?

 

[MCgunner]

There is a lot of hype surrounding Ruger - which is a fine gun, no question about it.

Oh, Lord Jesus there's no hype surrounding Smith and Wesson! BWAAAAA, ha, ha, ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's primarily why the MSRP is so high on 'em, hype. Lots of folks buy the name alone. It could be a POS RG revolver, but if it has the Smith and Wesson logo on it, it'll still bring $500 from some folks. I do think I'll take an investment casting over an MIM part.

Actually, friend of mine has a 686 and I like it very much. It is quite accurate. But, at the time he bought that gun, I had a Security Six I'd done a trigger job on and it was MUCH smoother and lighter than his 686, so it don't take much to get the Ruger's trigger "un-tort lawyer safe" and put some feel back into it. I didn't even buy springs, did it by carefully testing the hammer strikes and trimming the hammer spring until I started to see the indentation on a CCI primer start to get lighter, then I stopped. I never had a failure to fire after that, either. I slicked up the moving parts simply by using fine lapping compound on pivoting parts. Out of the box, it was a little stiff, but quite shootable. After the work, it was AWESOME! I don't think I'd wanna try to do the 686's trigger, just let a smith do it.

I'll say, though, you are well armed with either revolver. What I say about preferring the Ruger doesn't mean I wouldn't buy a Smith. I'm sort of still weighing the MIM parts thing, though, and the lock. I really don't think the lock is that big a deal, but I've heard other opinions and I haven't actually had a Smith with a lock on it to take apart to see how it works.

Heck, the DA .357 I have now is a Taurus M66, not as strong as either the 686 or the GP, but it's also lighter, a K frame sized gun. I don't like the extra heft of the L frame/GP guns. I had both that Security Six and a M19 in the past. This Taurus is the first one I've owned that was exceedingly accurate with either .38 or .357 loads. Neither the Ruger nor the Smith would shoot very well with .38 special stuff. While this is not a big deal to most, it is to me because I wanted these things for outdoor use and small game. I felt they should group better than 3" at 25 yards with wadcutter stuff. The Taurus shoots 1" groups with both wadcutter and a 140 grain Speer .357 load that my other guns liked. No, strength was NOT the first thing I was looking for in a DA revolver, but if two guns are of equal heft on the belt, I'll choose the stronger one. You wouldn't want a M60 to weigh 40 ounces in your pocket, would ya???? Different application totally, apples and oranges, and when you buy one, you accept the fact that it will not stand up to a lot of heavy .357 loads.

If I wanted another Smith .357, I'd get a 66 for the same reasons I like my Taurus, lighter and easier to tote, but large enough for outdoor accuracy.

 

[Run&Shoot]

GP100 for me. I only have a couple of specimens to compare, but the 686 triggers I have tried were worse that my GP100 which is OK but nothing fantastic. I went into a couple of shops last month looking specifically for a 686 because I had heard what great triggers they had. After some dry firing of a 4" and 6" model I was totally turned off. Heavy and, dare I say, almost gritty. Not the slick smooth pull I was expecting.

However, I did find a sweet consignment K-67 in .38 that had a dream trigger on it. I bought it in a hearbeat. It had been on display less than an hour. [Edit: the K-67 was from the early 1980s, the 686s were both new manufacture.]

I have no interest in the 686 unless someday I stumble across one with a good trigger. But I am not going to waste my time looking for it either. Has their trigger QC gone out the window?

At least the Ruger triggers I try today are pretty much the same as the first one I tried back in 1987. Not terrible, not fantastic, but reasonably smooth and consistent.

 

[MCgunner]

Hey, Run&Shoot, if you can't do it yourself, have a smith work that trigger on the GP. It'll slick up really nice for not much effort.

 

[jad0110]

I am currently saving up to purchase a 4" stainless GP100 and have seen a lot of talk about swapping out the trigger return spring for a Wolf. I know Rugers are simpler to disassemble than most others, is this a job the novice shooter can do himself? What is involved? Also, are there any other springs or components that can easily be swapped out in a GP100 to improve the trigger?

Just to throw a 3rd gun into the equation, what about the lesser known and quite unique 8-shot Taurus M608? Anyone know what Smith frame (K, L, ?) it is based on, if any? How would its durability compare to the GP and the 686?

A lot of questions, I know. I'm not the brightest guy in the post!