S&W "L" Frame/Ruger GP Advantages

[Confederate]

When the going got tough, the tough got going, and when S&W's K-frame series of guns wasn't able to take a steady diet of hot magnum ammo, S&W decided to beef up some of the parts prone to failure with high pressured rounds. After that, Ruger decided to add a full lug to the barrels of its new series of gun as well as a few more ounces. If S&W was beefing up its guns, Ruger was going to do the same regardless of whether they needed it or not.

Now that the vaunted "L" frames have been on the market for years, and S&W has increased the number of rounds from six rounds to seven, I haven't heard any complaints. One area of their guns that S&W changed was the forcing cone. The Ruger "Six" revolvers, however, were known to shoot many thousands of rounds of hot magnums without any problems. Skeeter Skelton said he knew of three Security-Sixes, each of which had 30,000+ hot magnum rounds, and only one was spitting a little but was still shootable. I've also noticed many new lightweight magnums have very skinny forcing cones, and they seem to be having no problems with cracked forcing cones.



The S&W 686 has a beefy forcing cone, replacing the ones in the
Model 19/66s which were subject to cracking.

The 686s also are balanced to lean forward in the hand towards the barrel. The Ruger GP-series revolver also adds a full lug barrel. Ruger's "Six" series points very well and their "skinny" barrels pick up targets much easier in my view. By taking steel out of the grip and shifting it to the barrel, the idea was to tame magnum blasts. All this was dictated by S&W, which was trying to emulate the Colt Python revolvers. The whole idea behind the K-frame revolvers was providing police with medium sized guns. I reckon when S&W and Ruger came to the conclusion that the police were moving away from revolvers to autos, that they turned their magnums into range guns.





I've dry fired both guns over the past day or so and the balance on the Ruger is, for me, preferable to the 686. If I were at a range, I'd prefer the 686 because the barrel stays on the target easier. But if I were out hiking, or if I were lost in the wilderness, I'd prefer the Ruger. For self defense and other quick shots, the Ruger wins every time.

What do you think?




Even though the L-frame is said to be "beefier" than the K-frame,
I put my 686 over an "actual size" 66 photo. Although the cylinder is
indeed beefier, I checked the size of the frame to the photo and can't
see any difference.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[mooner]

Suppose anyone has a both a K and L frame 357 we could compare? They sure seem to differ when I see them (although not side by side). Maybe it is just the cylinder that gives it that beefier look.

Couple of very nice guns you have there. Nice pictures as well. I'd like to see you buy a Model 66 and a GP100. It would be nice to see them all compared. I suppose you could throw Python into that purchase list while you are at it.

 

[Ghost Tracker]

IMHO, the Python is undoubtably a beautiful piece of revolver but it can't stand in the shadow of the Ruger or S&W when it comes to durability. It's VERY rare to hear of anyone shooting (wearing)-out a Ruger revolver. Yet no one shoots a Ruger in the SCORE Championships, it's a purely S&W love-fest. My personal preference is the Ruger, but not so much that I would argue my case.

 

[Japle]

Comparing out-of-the-box guns, the difference isn't so great. If you want a gun for competition, the S&W wins. A good pistolsmith can get a much better DA trigger pull on a Smith than he can on a Ruger.

 

[MrBorland]

Yet no one shoots a Ruger in the SCORE Championships, it's a purely S&W love-fest.

If you want a gun for competition, the S&W wins. A good pistolsmith can get a much better DA trigger pull on a Smith than he can on a Ruger.

Though you won't see many, in straight up competition where moonclips and/or 6+ round capacity isn't an issue (e.g. IDPA SSR & ICORE Classic), GP100s do just fine. The reason for their low turnout & S&W dominance is likely more historical than functional.

As far as tuning the action, GP100s can be tuned veeerrrrry nicely. Some of the nicest actions I've ever felt have been on GP100s tuned by a local top-ranked revo shooter. And that's saying something, coming from this admitted trigger snob who runs Smiths.

 

[Master Blaster]

The reason for their low turnout & S&W dominance is likely more historical than functional.

Its 100% functional, folks at the highest levels of competition use whatever gets them that extra point, if the GP 100 was more accurate or loaded faster or had a better trigger they would be using the GP to win matches. Apparently the Smith has the edge so thats what you see most.

 

[oldbear]

Suppose anyone has a both a K and L frame 357 we could compare? They sure seem to differ when I see them (although not side by side). Maybe it is just the cylinder that gives it that beefier look.

My pictures may not be good enough to really compare the two. To my older eyes I really need to see both side by side to notice the difference.

 

[MrBorland]

Quote:
The reason for their low turnout & S&W dominance is likely more historical than functional.

Its 100% functional, folks at the highest levels of competition use whatever gets them that extra point, if the GP 100 was more accurate or loaded faster or had a better trigger they would be using the GP to win matches. Apparently the Smith has the edge so thats what you see most.

I'm a Master SSR shooter and shot the Carolina Cup & the World Championship last year, and will shoot the Indoor Nationals in a few weeks, as well as the Carolina Cup and the Nationals later in the year. I shoot a Smith 686 myself, but wouldn't feel handicapped in any way with a tuned GP100.

True, Rugers are relative rarities on the competition circuit, but S&W's been part of the circuit for a long time, and many revo games are played with moonclipped guns, to which Ruger has no answer. S&Ws are great guns, but they've also simply become part of the mindset & culture among competitive wheelgunners. I, for instance, never considered a GP100 when I bought a revolver, since I never gave them much thought as a competition gun.

BTW, recall I mentioned the local revo shooter who tuned those GP100s I was impressed with? Last year, he made USPSA Revolver Grand Master - the 1st revo shooter to do it with speedloaders and shooting minor. His gun? A GP100.


Yours truly (with my 686) at the IDPA Worlds:

 

[Texas Gun Person]

I love my 586.

 

[Smith357]

Suppose anyone has a both a K and L frame 357 we could compare?

A picture of a Model 14 K-38 and a 586 L-357, not the best comparison picture.

The L frame is a tad taller to accept a slightly larger cylinder. The cylider windows in the frame is the same overall length. The hammer on the L frame is also just a smidgen taller.

 

[Master Blaster]

BTW, recall I mentioned the local revo shooter who tuned those GP100s I was impressed with? Last year, he made USPSA Revolver Grand Master - the 1st revo shooter to do it with speedloaders and shooting minor. His gun? A GP100.

Then why don't you switch, surely it will improve your scores greatly and you will make grand master too.

Suppose anyone has a both a K and L frame 357 we could compare? They sure seem to differ when I see them (although not side by side). Maybe it is just the cylinder that gives it that beefier look.

As far as the difference between an K frame and an L frame goes I have multiple examples of both, and the L Frame is Beefier in a couple places in the frame that are obvious when you have both in hand. Around the barrel opening, and at the rear near the hammer the L frame is thicker.

 

[Walkalong]

K, L, & N

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Have to plead some ignorance here but have a LOT of experience with the old Security Six type guns, and own a very smooth GP-100. My experience is mostly plainclothes with the 4" barrels.

The old Sixes were (are) smaller and handier than the GP/L frames, and better for wear 12 hours a day. I never split a forcing cone on one, but did shoot 125s by the case and replaced two barrels that eroded out and made the guns spit. Ruger paid for one and I paid for the other. I still have those guns and prefer them for CCW and field use.

I bought the GP-100 from an estate. It had a trigger job to die for, and rather than see it wind up as a beater under the seat of a truck I bought it. It isn't as elegant as a nice L frame but anything that shoots as well as that gun does doesn't need any further justification from me. However I tried a M28 as a daily driver for a short time many years ago and the GP is just as big and heavy.

I'm sure I'm missing something not owning an L frame; maybe I'll find one one of these days and remedy that.

 

[roaddog28]

I own a 686-2 4 inch and used to own a GP100 4 inch. I also own a Ruger Police Service Six 4 inch.
Both the 686 and GP100 are great for shooting factory 357 magnums. I experienced very little difference in accurately. My 686 has a great trigger and the GP100 I had did not. It was rough and had a hitch in the trigger which resulted in locking up when firing a round. I used to pull the trigger again and then the revolver would fire. Both Ruger and a gunsmith worked on the trigger but the problem did not go away. The gunsmith did lighten the trigger pull and smooth the trigger group but still I had the problem from time to time. So I finally sold it. I give the edge to the 686 in the refinement between the two. The GP100 is a fine gun for the money. But it lacks the finish and attention to detail the 686 has. The GP100 has the advantage in the locking system. The 686 has the advantage in the double action trigger and refinement.
Other than my Ruger Blackhawk, my Ruger Police Service Six is the best revolver I have ever owned made by Ruger. I give the edge to the Six Series of revolvers over the GP100 or even the SP101.
Opinion only,
Howard

 

[Confederate]

I don't like .357s to be bigger or heavier than they need be, and the S&W L-frames are horribly overworked. They are inherently more accurate than Rugers, meaning that if both are bolted into Ransom Rests, the L-frames are going to win. S&W designed their L-frames to be as accurate as Pythons and they are also designed to shoot light bullet weights more accurately. Rugers are designed to shoot heavier bullets accurately and the company does have a point. People shooting 125gr JHPs will be shooting more defensively, while people shooting 158gr+ JHPs/JSPs will generally be using them for hunting. Or if shooting wadcutters, will be using heavier bullets.

Ruger cylinders aren't as large as S&W L-frame cylinders, but Ruger cylinders have the cylinder locking notches between cylinders while S&W has them over the cylinders (except 7-shot models). The L-frame guns have way, way too much weight under the datgum barrels, in my view. I just got a Smith in a trade and the 6-inch barrel had me pulling my hair out! Why do they need to be so heavy! What didn't they understand when Bill Jordan said "medium frame"? L-frames aren't medium despite what S&W says. The 66s were. The Security-Sixes were. But the L-frames have poor pointing characteristics and would be awfully heavy in outdoor carry. The only place that makes sense for them is the range. I wouldn't even recommend the 6-incher for home protection.

It's a shame that Ruger traipsed after S&W in cutting steel from the handle and adding steel to the cylinders and barrels. Were the Security-Sixes, Service-Sixes and Speed-Sixes somehow anemic that they should all be canceled? The Speed-Six wasn't even replaced with anything. The Speed-Six was one of the best carrying .357s you could get. It still is. The SP-101 was a nice entrée, but let's face it, people complained that the gun was uncomfortable shooting 125gr JHP magnum rounds and it carried five full throttle rounds. The Speed-Six is not uncomfortable shooting magnum rounds and it carries six of them! The SP-101 is a little lighter, but it doesn't eliminate the niche created by the Speed-Six. Likewise, the Speed-Six would not replace the SP-101 if times were changed.




.

 

[jmr40]

What do you think?

I prefer the S&W N frame 44 mag. with a 4" barrel.

While only very slightly thicker through the cylinder, they are actually lighter, just as easy to carry,and point and shoot better for me. Make mine a 629 loaded with hot 44 specials or 44 mags loaded down slightly and you have the perfect full size personal defense revolver. Loaded with hot 44 mag loads and you have the perfect compromise between carryable size and power in a hunting or bear defense revolver.

 

[jad0110]

Ruger cylinders aren't as large as S&W L-frame cylinders, but Ruger cylinders have the cylinder locking notches between cylinders while S&W has them over the cylinders (except 7-shot models). The L-frame guns have way, way too much weight under the datgum barrels, in my view. I just got a Smith in a trade and the 6-inch barrel had me pulling my hair out! Why do they need to be so heavy! What didn't they understand when Bill Jordan said "medium frame"? L-frames aren't medium despite what S&W says. The 66s were. The Security-Sixes were. But the L-frames have poor pointing characteristics and would be awfully heavy in outdoor carry. The only place that makes sense for them is the range. I wouldn't even recommend the 6-incher for home protection.

Confederate,

Do you have much experience with the S&W N Frame .357s, like the Model 27 and 28?

I ask because I own a 4" Model 19 (K Frame), a 4" 686 (L), a 4" 28 (N) and a 4" Ruger Police Service Six.

Making comparisons, the 4" 686 is by far the most barrel heavy of the 4. I have gotten used to it over the years, but it still feels a bit "dim witted" and slow compared to the others. Even the N Frame, with it's slender barrel and minimal ejector rod shroud, actually feels lighter and more lively in the hand than an L Frame of the same barrel length despite the fact that it actually weighs more. In that regard (and ignoring the fact for a moment that the N Frame has a different grip frame than the K/L), N Frames feel more like their smaller K Frame brethren balance wise than the L Frames.

So if I were to rank my 4 inchers in order of which "feel" best to me, it would go:

1. 4" N
2. 4" K (very, very close 2nd)
3. 4" Six (almost a dead heat with the K)
4. 4" L

As for the Sixes, I also prefer them to the GPs, though they are nice revolvers in their own right. It'd be nice if more GPs were offered with partial lug barrels, but I guess the full luggers are in greater demand. I do love the Sixes; L Frame durability with K Frame handling characteristics. The only area where I believe the Sixes give up noticeable ground to the K Frames is the trigger. While mine is smooth, it is a little mushy feeling, and like all Sixes the pull weight isn't as consistent from start to finish as a S&W, and the trigger return gives what Grant Cunningham describes as a "false reset". That said, I still love this Sixes despite the action blemishes (IMHO).

Also, though the K Frames are certainly not as strong as other medium and large frame revolvers, I also think their "weakness" is a little over stated. That isn't to say one should go shoot 15,000 rounds of max pressure 110 and 125 grain Magnums through them, but most will do just fine with .38s and heavy grain weight Magnums in moderate quantities.

BTW,

The only blown/cracked forcing cone I've ever seen in person was on a GP100. It was a range rental gun alongside .357 K Frames, a Six (IIRC) and a Taurus or two (all purchased at the same time in the late 80s and all had about the same mix of ammo and total # of rounds through them).

Go figure. I assume that GP must have had a very small defect in that FC when it was made.

 

[jad0110]

Just for fun, the ideal .357 Magnum for me would combine the Ruger Six's frame and forcing cone (sturdy enough without being too bulky), the GP-100s locking system and ejector rod, Ruger's offset cylinder stop notches, the S&W K/L grip frame, S&W's pinned barrel setup, S&W's action, S&W's serrated trigger (I personally like serrated triggers) and Colt's bluing. Throw in the ability to remove the crane and cylinder for cleaning as easily as a S&W (with the removal of a single screw) and it'd be darn near perfect for me!

 

[roaddog28]

To continue with my post.
I have also owned a N frame model 28-2 4 inch. One of the best ever for shooting 357 magnums. I like the fact the 28 does not have a full underlug. Balances better in a person hands. I only had one issue with the model 28. With my small hands, reaching the trigger to shoot double action was somewhat awkward. Also the weight of the revolver was just like shooting my large frame Blackhawk.
All of the responses to this thread have been good. In my opinion I still believe the K frame magnum is the best all around 357 magnum ever made. It fits most shooters hands the best, best balanced, has the best "out of the box" double action trigger I have ever used and is very accurate.
The L frame is the closest to the K frame in grip but is muzzle heavy. The Ruger Security Six is probably the closest to the K frame on everything except for the trigger. The GP100 made be the most durable revolver in the medium frame class but lacks the refinement of the K or L frame. I actually think the Ruger Security is more refined than the GP100.
Again, opinion only
Howard

 

[jad0110]

The L frame is the closest to the K frame in grip but is muzzle heavy.

The L Frame 619 and 620 had potential. They were as durable as the x86 and x81, but had a partial lug barrel and standard 7 shot cylinder. But they had 2 piece barrels which put a lot of people off, they were never offered in a blued finish and IIRC they were only offered in 4" and 6" configurations.

 

[MrBorland]

Throw in the ability to remove the crane and cylinder for cleaning as easily as a S&W (with the removal of a single screw) and it'd be darn near perfect for me!

IMO, the yoke screw, particularly the newer type, is one of S&Ws weak links: It can bend or even break, yet it's the only thing keeping the entire cylinder assembly from moving forward or falling off the frame entirely when open.

Rarely a problem on guns seeing normal usage, but it can be on guns with lots & lots of reloads on them. I have seen it raise it's ugly head at matches, where in one case, the shooter couldn't close the cylinder after a reload (bent screw), and in another, the cylinder fell off entirely (broken screw). I've since kept an extra in my range bag.

Since cylinders rarely need to be removed, even for cleaning or lubrication, convenience isn't as important here as design. Ruger beats S&W in this regard, IMO.

 

[roaddog28]

The L Frame 619 and 620 had potential. They were as durable as the x86 and x81, but had a partial lug barrel and standard 7 shot cylinder. But they had 2 piece barrels which put a lot of people off, they were never offered in a blued finish and IIRC they were only offered in 4" and 6" configurations.

Jag0100 your right. I totally forgot the 619 and 620. Yes they are the closest to the K frame. Trouble is, in my neck of the woods they are hard to find. A person almost has to special order one from S&W and wait along time. And used good luck finding one.
Regards,
Howard

 

[Confederate]

Confederate, Do you have much experience with the S&W N Frame .357s, like the Model 27 and 28?

I've seen several N-frames and I think they're incredibly desirable. But they're heavy due to the cylinder size and overall girth of the gun.

Making comparisons, the 4" 686 is by far the most barrel heavy of the 4. I have gotten used to it over the years, but it still feels a bit "dim witted" and slow compared to the others. Even the N Frame, with it's slender barrel and minimal ejector rod shroud, actually feels lighter and more lively in the hand than an L Frame of the same barrel length despite the fact that it actually weighs more. In that regard (and ignoring the fact for a moment that the N Frame has a different grip frame than the K/L), N Frames feel more like their smaller K Frame brethren balance wise than the L Frames.

I understand exactly what you're saying. The balance just seems off with the 686. Like you, I've gotten used to the 4-inch 686, but not the 6-inch. There are many people who would like to hunt with a 6-inch, but S&W is making the guns for range use and competition shooting at long ranges. For both of these uses, no hauling of the gun is necessary. You just show up, get the gun and shoot. But for hunting, the L- and N-frame guns are impractical due to weight. If I were a handgun hunter now, I'd go for the 6-inch Security-Six (second hand). You can occasionally find them "new" but they're getting scarce.

It'd be nice if more GPs were offered with partial lug barrels, but I guess the full luggers are in greater demand.

Not necessarily. I don't think shooters have ever been given a chance to decide. Most walk into a gun store where there's only a heavy-barreled gun, so they buy that. I'll bet that if a tapered-barrel gun were available, many would go for it. But salesmen also are complicit in selling what they have and many shooters just don't have a choice.

I do love the Sixes; L Frame durability with K Frame handling characteristics. The only area where I believe the Sixes give up noticeable ground to the K Frames is the trigger.

I agree, but keep in mind that Ruger makes their guns for smooth single-action and the double action is for emergency use, such as a person or persons (or animal) attacking at virtually point blank range. Those who demand better actions can get them for not much money. Change the springs and do a few hundred dry fires and you'll be doing well. Or get a Spyderco ceramic file set and smooth up the parts without removing any substantial metal (just polish).

Also, though the K Frames are certainly not as strong as other medium and large frame revolvers, I also think their "weakness" is a little over stated. That isn't to say one should go shoot 15,000 rounds of max pressure 110 and 125 grain Magnums through them, but most will do just fine with .38s and heavy grain weight Magnums in moderate quantities.

Frame stretching is a major problem with K-frame magnums. You can re-time them okay, even change a barrel if you have to; but the frame stretching just can't be repaired. I know one guy who wore out a K-frame with just 2,000+ rounds. They were all 125gr jacketed bullets. I suspect you can shoot more 158gr magnum rounds. The problem is, Ruger never advertised the strength of their "Six" models. And there was at least one irresponsible gun hack who actually recommended that owners of Security-Sixes take it easy with full throttle magnum loads. It makes you wonder what he was drinking and whether he was pouring it through cotton first!

The only blown/cracked forcing cone I've ever seen in person was on a GP100. It was a range rental gun alongside .357 K Frames, a Six (IIRC) and a Taurus or two (all purchased at the same time in the late 80s and all had about the same mix of ammo and total # of rounds through them).

I suspect that many failures of that type are due to poor heat treat. I've seen some cracked forcing cones on Security-Sixes. Some Security-Sixes had cut forcing cones on the bottom and yet they haven't failed. Maybe some loads are too violent, I don't know. If one has a Model 66 and uses nothing but factory ammo, they should be okay as long as they don't shoot it relentlessly. In all the articles that have been written in all the junk gun magazines about torture tests, no one ever did one on a Model 19 or 66. Metal fatigue can be measured in some cases and I suspect S&W knew how many magnum rounds their K-frames would take.

I assume that GP must have had a very small defect in that FC when it was made.

Ruger generally watches its heat treat, but one can expect some failures on occasion. You also will have some goons coming in with their handloaded ammo loaded to maximum levels and maybe they seated their bullets too deep...who knows? If I owned a gun range, I wouldn't let any of my guns be shot with someone else's ammo.

.

 

[Confederate]

...the ideal .357 Magnum for me would combine the Ruger Six's frame and forcing cone (sturdy enough without being too bulky), the GP-100s locking system and ejector rod, Ruger's offset cylinder stop notches, the S&W K/L grip frame, S&W's pinned barrel setup, S&W's action, S&W's serrated trigger (I personally like serrated triggers) and Colt's bluing.

Ooooooooh...Colt's bluing (drool!).

Okay, sorry for the Simpson rip-off, but yeah, who wouldn't want that? Too bad it's ecologically unfriendly. That's why S&W stopped "bluing" their guns and turned to a blackening process that's actually more durable.

I don't care much for the GP-100's locking system. One spring does not do a better job than two despite what Ruger says. As for actions, pay some extra $$$ and get a good action job. You'll be amazed at how good a Ruger action can get.

.

 

[bannockburn]

Confederate

At one time I had a S&W Model 686-4", a Colt Trooper MK.V-6", and a GP-100-4". Due to economic circumstances I had to sell off some of my guns to pay for school. Since I had an abundance of .357s, I decided to keep one and sell the other two. Plus and minus points are as follows:

Model 686:

Plus points

Best DA/SA trigger of any factory gun that I have ever owned.
Second best overall fit and finish.
More than hefty enough to handle steady magnum diet.
Easier to carry than a comparable 6" barrel model.
Very accurate

Minus points

Full underlug barrel makes the gun rather muzzle heavy, even in a 4" length.
Factory stocks are uncomfortable to shoot with and don't fit my hand very well.

Colt MK.V:

Plus points

Best fit and finish overall with a great polish and blue finish.
Best factory stocks; not too big and fill my hand perfectly.
Second best DA/SA trigger.
Great balance with the 6" barrel.
Very accurate

Minus points

The 6" barrel is not as comfortable to carry as a 4" barrel model.

Ruger GP-100:

Plus points

Solid construction and modular design make for a user friendly revolver.

Minus points

Full underlug barrel feels heavy with a 4" barrel.
Somewhat disappointing as the replacement to the Security Six series.
Fit and finish a notch below that of S&W and Colt.
Trigger pull in DA is heavy and gritty compared to the other two; SA is adequate.
Stocks don't fit my hand very comfortably and the gun feels blocky and awkward when shooting.

As you can probably figure out by now the GP-100 was the first to go. I really enjoyed all of my Security/Service/Speed Six revolvers that I had owned over the years, but the GP-100 just didn't feel or handle anywhere near as well as they did. The tough choice came down to the 686 and the Trooper MK.V. Both were great guns in their own right, but the handiness of the 4" barrel on the 686 tipped the scales in that direction so I sold the Trooper MK.V and kept the 686.