S & W Model 686 6 inch vs. Ruger GP-100 6 inch both in .357 and Taurus

[stinger 327]

The recoil on the .357 Sp-101 snub wasn't that bad. What was real bad was the Ruger LCR .38+P. It literally felt like it blew up in your hand and very difficult to hit the paper. That was a gun you didn't want to shoot as it is your last resort gun. I can't imagine how bad the recoil with the LCR would have been in the .357 model.

 

[stinger 327]

I kept my unreal accurate Taurus 66 and bought a 3" to go with it. I sold my Ruger Security Six, not that accurate, and sold my M19 Smith as the 4" Taurus is a better shooter with just as good a trigger and I had a K frame forcing cone crack at the flat spot on me. I'm a little off on K frames since then, but still have one. The Taurus is a better shooter and a little beefier around the forcing cone.

The Smith 686 is a good revolver, with preference to pre-Hillary hole models. Your choice, your money. I've made my choice and live happy.

What is the price of a new 686 6 inch .357 going for these days? $700+

 

[jad0110]

Can't go wrong with any of them IMO. Between the GP100 and the 686, I went 686 because the GP felt a little too muzzle heavy for my tastes.

Actually, I prefer the older Ruger Six series over the GP. They are nearly as durable with a similar, lively feel to the S&W K Frames, though the Six Series' false trigger reset can be a little annoying.

I owned a 6" Taurus 66 once. Other than being a little crude finish wise (uneven matte stainless, tool marks), it was an accurate reliable gun that balanced nicely and had a pretty smooth DA trigger. Wish I hadn't sold it. There is a used 6" stainless example in my area with a partial underlug for $395. A little high maybe. Doesn't matter though, my gun budget is empty for the rest of the year. Oh well.

Taurus is a bit odd in that some of their guns, like the 66, seem to be quite good and others not so good.

 

[stinger 327]

Can't go wrong with any of them IMO. Between the GP100 and the 686, I went 686 because the GP felt a little too muzzle heavy for my tastes.

Actually, I prefer the older Ruger Six series over the GP. They are nearly as durable with a similar, lively feel to the S&W K Frames, though the Six Series' false trigger reset can be a little annoying.

I owned a 6" Taurus 66 once. Other than being a little crude finish wise (uneven matte stainless, tool marks), it was an accurate reliable gun that balanced nicely and had a pretty smooth DA trigger. Wish I hadn't sold it. There is a used 6" stainless example in my area with a partial underlug for $395. A little high maybe. Doesn't matter though, my gun budget is empty for the rest of the year. Oh well.

Taurus is a bit odd in that some of their guns, like the 66, seem to be quite good and others not so good.

It just makes me wonder why S & W cost so much more over all the other brands?

 

[WestKentucky]

I have owned the Taurus and 2 gp100s. The Taurus was a far superior gun than both of the gp100s I had. Both GPs were horrendous when it came to barrel quality. One had a visibly chattered barrel near the forcing cone and the other had an oversized bore. The Taurus bore was .356 and would shoot one ragged hole to 10 yards and was softball sized at 50 yards...gun likely better than operator with taurus, operator much better than gun with both GPs. That revolver was traded off for one of the GPs due to the acclaimed strength and ruggedness...and I have regretted it ever since. My other taurus guns exhibit similar traits in that they work wonderfully, shoot very accurately, and ARE every bit as nice as the gun that they are "knockoffs" of. I can say that my smith's have been just as nice but no appreciable amount nicer in any aspect than my taurus guns...my other taurus guns have been/are 85, 85ch, 405, 66, m44 pt92, pt99, pt100, and some polymer 40sw that I never much liked the feel of...but function was flawless. My smith's have been/are 27, 627, 30-1, 10, 22a. Another gun that comes to mind in this mix though is a colt trooper, unless you are dead set on 6" you would be hard pressed to find a BETTER gun but it has many equals...and the Colts are not hard to find used. I do find myself currently lacking a mid length 357 (not over 8 or under 3 inches)and my money is waiting on me finding a 686+, taurus 66 stainless, or a colt trooper mk3. With those you cannot go wrong. With the ruger you better check serial numbers and make sure that it is wearing a ruger factory made barrel not one of the outsourced POS barrels like I got that nearly ruined me on Ruger.

 

[Tallball]

DIY - You made me laugh.

460 - I wasn't referring to you, or even anyone in particular in this thread. It just sticks in my craw that people with zero Taurus experience will slam on them anyway. You have had experience with them, so I respect your opinion.

It's all anecdotal anyway. With the many many tens of thousands of Rugers. S&W's, and Taurii out there, anyone's experiences are too small a sample size to be statistically relevant anyway. If each of the three companies released a year-to-year accurate report listing how many guns they produced that year and how many warranty repairs they performed, that would tell us the real story. Without that kind of data, it's all just speculation.

You had bad experiences, I have had good ones. Shrug. You pays your money and takes your chances.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Yes sir you do take your chances. I do understand your feelings too. I see a lot of parrots on gun forums who read some bad Taurus stories and then repeat them with no first hand experience. Honestly I've heard some bad stories about all three company's quality control in the last few years. I think it is important to consider a companies customer service reputation when buying also for that reason.

Thanks for responding.

 

[Mastrogiacomo]

I have the 4" 686+ and I own a GP100 but the 686 actually balances better in my hand and feels lighter so the Smith is my favorite of the two. I plan to get a 3" 686 at some point.....

Laura

 

[MCgunner]

I'm not sure where Rossi's are made.

Sao Paulo, Brazil.

 

[MCgunner]

What is the price of a new 686 6 inch .357 going for these days? $700+

Probably at LEAST that, but I don't really look at new Smiths, so I don't know. I do know I gave $197 for my like new nickel Tsurus 66 used about 10 years back. It was about 10 years old at the time. It was one of the best deals I ever made on a revolver. The thing is smooth shootin' and a real tack driver.

I like buying used, but can afford a new Taurus, bought a new 605 Poly recently and have been carrying and shooting it a lot. Under 20 ounces empty, yet ain't that bad with full house 140 grain .357s in it. It starts to get irritating with a hot 165 SWC, but it shoots too high with that load, anyway. It's dead on with the 140 Speer JHP. I bought it because I had this discount voucher from Taurus, got it for a tick over 300 bucks. Sure is a neat little carry, like it better than my SP101. The SP101 was a little easier to shoot with hot loads, but not THAT much considering how much easier the 605 is to tote. It's a trade off, really, how much gun you need for shooting and how much is too much to carry. Me, recoil don't scare me, within reason. In .357s, some where around the 12 ounce 340 PD with hot loads is a little much.

 

[Bezoar]

the 3 listed models of revolver will all fire the same ammo, do the same thing. just at a different price point.

warranty work.

they all have the same warranty repair for the original purchaser. ruger and taurus actually provide warranty work for a gun bought second hand.
smith and wesson, it has to be produced after a certain calender date before theyll work on it if you buy it second hand. and then youll be mortgaging your left kidney..

 

[stinger 327]

I have owned the Taurus and 2 gp100s. The Taurus was a far superior gun than both of the gp100s I had. Both GPs were horrendous when it came to barrel quality. One had a visibly chattered barrel near the forcing cone and the other had an oversized bore. The Taurus bore was .356 and would shoot one ragged hole to 10 yards and was softball sized at 50 yards...gun likely better than operator with taurus, operator much better than gun with both GPs. That revolver was traded off for one of the GPs due to the acclaimed strength and ruggedness...and I have regretted it ever since. My other taurus guns exhibit similar traits in that they work wonderfully, shoot very accurately, and ARE every bit as nice as the gun that they are "knockoffs" of. I can say that my smith's have been just as nice but no appreciable amount nicer in any aspect than my taurus guns...my other taurus guns have been/are 85, 85ch, 405, 66, m44 pt92, pt99, pt100, and some polymer 40sw that I never much liked the feel of...but function was flawless. My smith's have been/are 27, 627, 30-1, 10, 22a. Another gun that comes to mind in this mix though is a colt trooper, unless you are dead set on 6" you would be hard pressed to find a BETTER gun but it has many equals...and the Colts are not hard to find used. I do find myself currently lacking a mid length 357 (not over 8 or under 3 inches)and my money is waiting on me finding a 686+, taurus 66 stainless, or a colt trooper mk3. With those you cannot go wrong. With the ruger you better check serial numbers and make sure that it is wearing a ruger factory made barrel not one of the outsourced POS barrels like I got that nearly ruined me on Ruger.

Was your Ruger brand new when you bought it and if it was new what year was it made?
Speaking of Colts that you mentioned, 30 years ago I had a Colt Python .357 4inch in Nickel. Excellent trigger.
My understanding is that Taurus usually copycats Beretta or Smith's.

 

[stinger 327]

DIY - You made me laugh.

460 - I wasn't referring to you, or even anyone in particular in this thread. It just sticks in my craw that people with zero Taurus experience will slam on them anyway. You have had experience with them, so I respect your opinion.

It's all anecdotal anyway. With the many many tens of thousands of Rugers. S&W's, and Taurii out there, anyone's experiences are too small a sample size to be statistically relevant anyway. If each of the three companies released a year-to-year accurate report listing how many guns they produced that year and how many warranty repairs they performed, that would tell us the real story. Without that kind of data, it's all just speculation.

You had bad experiences, I have had good ones. Shrug. You pays your money and takes your chances.

I have heard that the newer Smith's like the (Sigs made in the USA-not Germany) have gone down in quality. I had a brand new S & W 617 and the first time I took it out to shoot the cylinder seized on me. I sent it back under warranty and no problems after that.

 

[MCgunner]

My understanding is that Taurus usually copycats Beretta or Smith's.

Not really. Of course they look similar, but the revolvers use coiled springs. The 66s have always had frame mounted floating firing pins, not mounted on the hammer. The older 66s were hammer block actions, but the newer (and slicker) 66s use a transfer bar system. The 66s have a little bigger frame than the K frames to accommodate a round forcing cone, no flat on the bottom like the Smiths which are weak at the forcing cone flat. The 66 is sort of between the 686 and the older K frame 19 and 66 in size. They're copy cats in that they fire a bullet and look similar, I guess.

The 92s are close to the Beretta, but the safety is a lot better giving the cocked and locked carry option. But, Taurus makes a plethora of other models and Smith and Wesson actually copies the Taurus Judge with their "Governor". Of course, the Judge got its inspiration from the Thunder Five.

 

[stinger 327]

I have owned and shot both Ruger revolvers: LCR +P .38 and SP-101 snub in .357. The LCR .38+P was a terror to shoot. The SP-101 was ok because of the weight recoil wasn't as bad but both revolvers were not that accurate as far as hitting paper targets.

 

[contender]

I highly respect the GP100. I believe that it is a more robust and durable design than the 686. I have never seen a GP out if time. I believe the GP100 to be the superior revolver for LEO carry. Yep, I use to carry one before being forced to an auto.

But when it comes to double action shooting and the various games involving such, the Smith is superior.

 

[RealGun]

In new guns, I'll take the GP100. I have both GP100 5" and a 686-6 4".

I have invested in having my gunsmith make the S&W a good shooter and more attractive with polished out trigger and hammer. It also has a plug for a removed internal lock system. I wouldn't buy another one. My gunsmith was incredulous when I brought him the gun and said it was nearly new at that point.

The GP100 had to go back with chambers that were too shallow, binding up a loaded cylinder. Since then I have a gun that is unbelievably accurate, and in that size is pretty forgiving with full power ammo...no flinch. Again, that is a 5" barrel.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I bought a 6" stainless GP100 a few years ago and I don't know how many dry fires (with snap caps) its been through, with an additional 1000 rounds or so of live ammo, and the action has smoothed up beyond belief. Single action fire is amazing, and double action like I said is incredibly smooth and not very heavy though I haven't measured it.

Since I've owned the gun, I can say I've been supremely happy with it and it is very nicely made. Really that's all I can comment on as I haven't owned the other revolvers, but rest assured you won't go wrong with a GP100 and please do keep the factory springs in it until you've shot it/dry fired it some in order to smooth it up especially if you buy new.

 

[stinger 327]

I bought a 6" stainless GP100 a few years ago and I don't know how many dry fires (with snap caps) its been through, with an additional 1000 rounds or so of live ammo, and the action has smoothed up beyond belief. Single action fire is amazing, and double action like I said is incredibly smooth and not very heavy though I haven't measured it.

Since I've owned the gun, I can say I've been supremely happy with it and it is very nicely made. Really that's all I can comment on as I haven't owned the other revolvers, but rest assured you won't go wrong with a GP100 and please do keep the factory springs in it until you've shot it/dry fired it some in order to smooth it up especially if you buy new.

With any of these firearms I always keep them factory stock. No customizing with internals.

 

[stinger 327]

In new guns, I'll take the GP100. I have both GP100 5" and a 686-6 4".

I have invested in having my gunsmith make the S&W a good shooter and more attractive with polished out trigger and hammer. It also has a plug for a removed internal lock system. I wouldn't buy another one. My gunsmith was incredulous when I brought him the gun and said it was nearly new at that point.

The GP100 had to go back with chambers that were too shallow, binding up a loaded cylinder. Since then I have a gun that is unbelievably accurate, and in that size is pretty forgiving with full power ammo...no flinch. Again, that is a 5" barrel.

Makes me wonder what binds up the cylinders on these revolvers? Perhaps the loads are too hot then again we are only talking about using factory loads in these guns and not handloads.

 

[WestKentucky]

Was your Ruger brand new when you bought it and if it was new what year was it made?
Speaking of Colts that you mentioned, 30 years ago I had a Colt Python .357 4inch in Nickel. Excellent trigger.
My understanding is that Taurus usually copycats Beretta or Smith's.

Fairly recent manufacture but definately outsourced barrel. I looked up both serial numbers and dated them to about 3 months apart. Both were secondhand and I was offered less than a pleasant proposition for a factory repair on either. Pretty much when I said I bought secondhand it ended my chances, even if the gun were unfired but secondhand. The gentleman who they went to used them as trading fodder at a gun show. I hope that whoever got them in the end got them fixed on Ruger dime.

 

[weisse52]

I would jump on a pre-lock 686/586. Second would be the GP100 and third would be a 686 and most likely a 686+.

You will be well served by either the Smith or the Ruger.

 

[Propforce]

S&W 686 if you can afford it.

GP 100 if you can't.

 

[peacebutready]

I have owned 14 Taurus revolvers and only one has given me problems. Two or three of them had triggers that were stiffer than I like, and the rest were very good.

When were they made? Any in recent years?

 

[stinger 327]

Fairly recent manufacture but definately outsourced barrel. I looked up both serial numbers and dated them to about 3 months apart. Both were secondhand and I was offered less than a pleasant proposition for a factory repair on either. Pretty much when I said I bought secondhand it ended my chances, even if the gun were unfired but secondhand. The gentleman who they went to used them as trading fodder at a gun show. I hope that whoever got them in the end got them fixed on Ruger dime.

So then that explains it the Rugers you had were not original barrels. The Taurus guns you had were probably factory new then. Modified guns vs. factory guns.