Three guns to choose from..one purchase...what to do ?!

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Don Lu

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2006
Messages
406
Location
Georgia
I have been looking at these 3 guns for the home, not for CCW (of course)
1 taurus 608 8 inch ported
2 ruger gp 100 6 inch
3 smith 686 (7 shot version) 6 in or longer

you can clearly see the style i am going for.
any analysis to help make my descision ?
 
Smith. Best revolvers made.

Marshall's point is good, though: Rugers are durable, though a bit coarse.

My .02

dave-o
 
Marshal or anyone else who may know..is Ruger really that much stronger than s&w.. Seems im always ready how sturdy of a gun ruger is compared to smith ?!
 
I have no experience with newer S&Ws. However , I did own a M19 1980 vintage and my brother bought a 686 back in the early 90s. Both had very heavy triggers until we had our local gunsmith do a trigger job on the two of them. After the action job, they were two of the nicest shooting revolvers I've ever shot. I also have a couple of Ruger GPs. One blue, one stainless. The blue had a better trigger out of the box though both are pretty good and I shoot the same kind of groups with both te Smiths and the GPs. IMO, I don't think the Smiths are $150 + cost of action job, better than a GP100. Unfortunately, Ruger doesn't make a 7 shooter so if that's what you want, you'll have to go with the Smith or Taurus. I don't have enough experience with Taurus to comment. I doubt you'll be disappointed with any of the three, so just get whichever feels best in your hand.
 
Hi Don Lu

No experience with the Taurus but I can tell you both the 686 and the GP-100 are top-flight - even though someone who is sensitive to triggers will likely want to get either one worked on as they come from the factories.
If price is of no concern (or you can buy "used"), I agree heartily with "Tech4061" - let the decision be made by which one feels best in your hand. If you are lucky enough to get to test shoot them - go for the one that you can recover for the second shot the easiest. I say that because that will be the one that is most natural for your first shot too.
Enjoy your dilemma, Don - that's the kind we'd all like to face every day!:)
 
The Ruger line of revolvers (speaking mainly of the GP series, but the SRH and SBH as well) are generally touted as being hugely stronger than any S&W production gun. However, in all the instances I've seen, the only way to really wear out an S&W is to feed it nothing but high-power specialty loads. For the average joe looking for a gun to shoot off every so often, he is not willing to spend that kind of price. If you only buy a Ruger because you have been mistakenly informed that they have vastly superior durability when compared to a S&W, but then only shoot 38 specials and the occasional factory .357 magnumt out of it, then the reason you bought it for originally become illogical. If you buy a S&W, shoot a thousand or two of super high power loads through it and it breaks, that doesn't mean it's a bad gun. If the Ruger would have lasted another hundred rounds, that doesn't mean it's strength is all that greater. New S&Ws are very strong revolvers and I wouldn't be against using full power loads in them at all.

I'm not knocking Ruger, I think they make nice guns. However, I feel that S&W are generally a better quality. I am however questioning the notion that they are much stronger than S&W revolvers.

As for the triggers, I've felt both S&W revolvers and Ruger revolvers, all NIB, and the general consensus has been that the S&W revolvers have better triggers.
 
1. Got any kids or Mother-In-Laws you can sell ?

if not..

2. Ruger.

I personally do not care for ported guns, or agree with 7 seven shot cylinders , even if it a S&W. Gets into timing , weight of cylinder and DA trigger pull and such.
 
The Ruger for these reasons: grip is moduler (easy to adjust for fit), strength (how many people on this forum have seen a worn out GP-100), stainless steel for durability, unlike the Smith & Wessons' Ruger does not have that stupid trigger safety hole in the side of the frame:cuss: .
 
Marshal or anyone else who may know..is Ruger really that much stronger than s&w.. Seems im always ready how sturdy of a gun ruger is compared to smith ?!
Click to expand...

Don Lu,

Yes, from what I know and from what the ammo manufacturers say, the Ruger is really stronger. I'm not a stamped Ruger endorsement either, I own more S&W's than Rugers. Overall, I like the S&W revolver more than the Ruger revolver. But for range/hunting use with Gorilla .357 Magnum loads, I'll take my 6" GP-100.

GP-100%20%205.jpg
 
thanks.. after reading ur posts and reading some other misc info on th web, i think ill test the ruger and the taurus ( if i can find the taurus 608 ) smiths are kinda pricey and seems like the smiths arent too much better the the other two mentioned if the smiths are better at all.so its the ruger dependability vs taurus (i love the look and the 8 shot capacity) also they seem to be improvinmg steadily in their quality and reliability also. thanks for the in put...feel free to continue !
 
Okay, I'll ask. Other than experimenting with "creative" handloads that exceed loading manual's recommended pressure limits, when would an L frame S&W not be strong enough?

I've put hundreds of "warmish" handloads through my 686 over the years with no harm to the forcing cone, top strap, etc. This was a 6 shot - don't know about 7 shots in the newer revolvers. Other than my friend's Redhawk, I never got into Ruger revolvers.
 
Compare a new 6" GP-100, KGP-161, to a new 6" S&W 686, SKU 164224. The GP-100 weighs in at 46 oz vs the 686's 44 oz (43 oz if you go for a 7-shot 686+.). The MSRP price of the S&W is about $80 more, street prices are closer.

Now, look closer.... the cast steel Ruger has a massive shrouded barrel, the forged/heat-treated S&W has a less massive full lug barrel. Sure, the sideplate is removeable from the S&W, undoubtedly 'weakening' the frame a bit, but the N-frame is not much thicker - and it is designed for .44 Magnums. With any normal SAAMI spec'd .357M ammo, you won't ever 'stretch' that L-frame. While you are looking 'closer', really look closer... I rejected every 4" GP-100 for the obvious tool marks and QC boo-boo's, almost never a problem with S&W's (I've had one 629 come with loose sideplate screws - could have been loosened in route, even.). My locally ordered Redhawk had burst casting bubbles between the chamber bores - fixed, of course, by Ruger changing out the cylinder, etc. Every Ruger, except my SRH, I have bought has been delivered as a work in progress. I'll take S&W, but either will serve most folks quite well.

Stainz
 
Honestly, the difference between the Smith and the Ruger would have to be subjective. Both are very strong, rugged guns and both companies have excellent QC in the unlikely event that it breaks. Between those two, I'd go for the 686, and I might go for the 686 over almost any other choice (except a Python or S&W M27).
Forgings (Smith) are stronger than Castings (Ruger). Modular frame (Ruger) is a stronger design than one with a sideplate (Smith). Really, you can't go wrong with either of them. Get the one that fits you best and don't let the cost sway you. Get the one you want. If you "settle" for something that you've been told is "just as good but cheaper", but isn't what you want, you'll regret it later when you end up buying the one you want anyway.
 
I had a similar dilemma and decided to go with the Ruger. The ruger seems to win in the areas of quality and strength. It is a no nonsense gun-- one you can count on.
whw
 
The Ruger GP100 maybe stronger but no one has worn out a 686 either. So you're carrying extra weight (and putting up with lesser cosmetics, inferior feel and less user friendly lockwork) for no reason.
 
I have a 608, it is the 4inch version. I LOVE IT. I use it for home defense and hopefully some hog hunting. It is great to shoot, fits my hands good and is built like a tank. It is built on the same frame as the .44 mag so you know you can shoot any .357 load you want through it.

Plus, you can't sneeze at 8 shots of .357 Hell if I get my carry permit, (decision pending an overseas assignment) I might even try to carry it when it is cold outside. Just because.
 
Honestly, the difference between the Smith and the Ruger would have to be subjective. Both are very strong, rugged guns and both companies have excellent QC in the unlikely event that it breaks. Between those two, I'd go for the 686, and I might go for the 686 over almost any other choice (except a Python or S&W M27). Forgings (Smith) are stronger than Castings (Ruger). Modular frame (Ruger) is a stronger design than one with a sideplate (Smith). Really, you can't go wrong with either of them.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. I've also seen somewhere on this forum someone mentioning that Ruger is strong everywhere, but the Smith is strong where it needs to be. Honestly, both are great guns and are about equal in durability. Just depends on what balances in your hand better. For me, I preferred the Smith because the frame was less bulky at the top of the backstrap.

As a side note, although the K frame is not as tough as an L, I do think that K frames are stronger than most people give them credit for. Sure, you wouldn't want to feed one a steady diet of hot, light weight loads (say, less than 140 grns), which seem to be the culprit in a lot of frame stretched Ks. I've spoken to a couple of guys that have both fired at least 4000 rounds of 158 grain standard velocity/low recoil stuff through their Ks and have never had any forcing cone wear or frame buldging. Really, you don't here about these sorts of problems actually happening all that often. Do any of you?

Regardless, the weak point on any revolver is the forcing cone, and even this in the GP or Smith L and N frames has a good chance of wearing out.
 
Ruger. Hell for stout, good ergonomics, nice looking and no ILS.

If I were after a new .357, I'd take a GP-100 over anything else out there for a number of reasons (not the least of which is price).

That said, I do like my pre-lock S&W's.

I have very limited experience with Taurus revolvers, but I find them aesthetically displeasing in general.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
357 Revolver with 8 Round Capacity and Rails
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
7K
mcb
mcb
Confederate
  • Locked
.357 Choice, Part II
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
mike101
M
C
  • Locked
GP100 3 inch still being made?
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
WJR
W
Zaydok Allen
  • Locked
What are your three finest shooting revolvers?
2 3
Replies
66
Views
5K
hemiram
hemiram
A
  • Locked
3 New Guns
Replies
11
Views
908
armed85
A
Back
Top