Which is a better 357 revolver: Python v SW 686 v Ruger GP100?

Which is a better 357 magnum revolver?

  • Colt Python

    Votes: 87 23.5%
  • SW 686

    Votes: 141 38.1%
  • Ruger GP100

    Votes: 90 24.3%
  • Tough call. They are at par with each other.

    Votes: 52 14.1%

  • Total voters
    370
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pythons are pretty, Smiths are smooth, and Rugers are rugged. Pick one.
Bingo.

A S&W can put on a mighty nice blue when they want to, but nothing is finished like a Royal Blue Python. They just sort of glow.

Rugers are not as smooth as the others, but if I had to carry a revolver at my hip out back of beyond, it would be my choice.

General use, the S&W.
 
No such thing as better

I'm a fan of all three brands. I don't think one is really better than the other. I think a better word would be "different". One thing that makes me laugh is how people think that because ruger uses investment cast they are inferior to s&w and colt who uses the forging process. People should do a little more research before they come to that conclusion. Forging is actually a very old outdated method for making revolver frames. Investment cast is much more modern and efficient process and it can withstand a much higher psi than forged. You are limited to the types alloys used in forging. You can use the worlds strongest and hardest alloys in investment cast. When Dan Wesson left the s&w company to make his own revolvers his decision to use investment cast was a no-brainer. He didn't go with that method because it was weaker or inferior!! Bill Ruger, Dan Wesson, and among others are highly intelligent gun experts and would have not chose that method if it was inferior to forging. S&W uses forging because they been using that method for 150 years and its part of their tradition. All three brands are awesome and have their own unique attributes about them. All three have advantages over one another but not one is better than the other. It's all a matter of opinion and how a certain revolver suits a different individual.
 
I'm a fan of all three brands. I don't think one is really better than the other. I think a better word would be "different". One thing that makes me laugh is how people think that because ruger uses investment cast they are inferior to s&w and colt who uses the forging process. People should do a little more research before they come to that conclusion. Forging is actually a very old outdated method for making revolver frames. Investment cast is much more modern and efficient process and it can withstand a much higher psi than forged. You are limited to the types alloys used in forging. You can use the worlds strongest and hardest alloys in investment cast. When Dan Wesson left the s&w company to make his own revolvers his decision to use investment cast was a no-brainer. He didn't go with that method because it was weaker or inferior!! Bill Ruger, Dan Wesson, and among others are highly intelligent gun experts and would have not chose that method if it was inferior to forging. S&W uses forging because they been using that method for 150 years and its part of their tradition. All three brands are awesome and have their own unique attributes about them. All three have advantages over one another but not one is better than the other. It's all a matter of opinion and how a certain revolver suits a different individual.
I cant even begin to count whats wrong with this statement, Forging is generally signicantly stronger than casts, what gives rugers their strength is the gross over use of steel they use in the casting process, if s&w used that much metal in a forged.revolver it would be much stronger than any ruger.
 
metallurgy

That's perfectly fine to think my statement is wrong. I do know what i'm talking about though. I'm not going to say where I work or what school I've studied at but I do have a degree in metallurgy. I've studied metallurgical engineering and all metalworking processes including cast, forging, sintering ect. Like i said before I'm not saying one is better than the other, just different.
 
I'm fortunate enough to own a Python and an early S&W686; never owned a GP. I have owned and duty carried their wonderful Security Sixes and miss them more than any handgun I can remember. I thought they'd never quit making them but I was oh so wrong.

I've never had my Python out as much as the 686 but it has pulled it's share of range time. The 686has also. In addition the 686 was a favorite deer gun for years and always acquitted itself with ALL one shot kills. I even killed deer with the M19! But the Security Six was always my choice for a "working" holster gun. Soooo...the Python is the best fitted (though you'd be hard pressed to tell it if you tried my 686) and certainly the most beautiful. The 686 is very attractive and the equal of the Colt in accuracy. The Security Six? I still cry when I think about it; sort of like I still do over the wonderful and discontinued .44mag carbine.
 
50 years ago I would agree that forging was the superior of the two processes. Although Investment casting has come such a long way since then its amazing. One advantage is that you can use any type of alloy in the investment cast process resulting in a very strong finished product. Part of what I do for a living is testing various metal parts for strength. For lack of a better word forged steal is more pliable than cast. It tends to bend or twist under extreme conditions where cast would shatter. But it takes much more psi to shatter a cast piece than it does to bend or twist a forged piece. Now I am not bashing s&w in any way. I own s&w revolvers and I think they are outstandingly beautiful. I also think ruger makes an excellent strong revolver. I just think it's ridiculous when people bash the investment casting process. In the end both methods used make fine quality firearms. A ruger revolver, s&w, or a colt will still be functioning long after we are dead and gone.
 
The python is getting so costly that not so many people would buy one now just to shoot it. You just don't see that many being shot compared to other revolvers, they are just bringing too much money now. Ruger is a durable, reliable revolver. The newer s&w with the 2-piece barrel are some of the most accurate revolvers I ever shot. I only wish they had just thrown a cable lock in the box to satisfy the law instead of installing the internal lock.

Good revolvers are labor intensive to build. Case in point, CZ-Dan Wesson says they are bringing back the Dan Wesson revolver and it has a retail price of over $1100.
 
In the end both methods used make fine quality firearms. A ruger revolver, s&w, or a colt will still be functioning long after we are dead and gone.

Yep. If it holds up I couldn't care less how it's made. However, I've also heard that forged parts take polishing and tuning a little better than cast.

So buy what you like. I like all three for different reasons.
 
I think that would be amazing to see Dan Wesson revolvers make a comeback! I've always been intrigued by Dan Wesson revolvers but never had the privilege to own one. They kind of remind me of a cross between a ruger and a s&w. I'm sure the interchangeable barrels is attributed partially to the 1100 retail.
 
Well said 460kodiak. That may be true about polishing forged parts. Although I polished the trigger/action on a gp100 and it turned out beautifully. It felt like a different gun.
 
Don't own the Python but I would give it the best looking award ... I do own a 686 and the GP both shoot great I've had a trigger job done on the GP so would consider all things equal the Smith has a slight edge in overall refinement but give durability to the Ruger hands down I like them both
 
Do these top-tier guns get in their own way putting rounds down range and on target? I think not. They are on par as to this, their chief, purpose.

I'm happy to own a 686-4 and a Wiley Clapp GP100, and would be happy to own a Python. However, I will never pay a price that is out of all relation to the gun's chief purpose. But I am happy to have acquired a Dan Wesson 15-2 at less than a third the typical price for a Python, yet still on par with it, and a 686, and a GP100.
 
Last edited:
Comparing a 686 to a GP-100 is valid as both are good revolvers and still in production. The Colt Python is a different deal as it has been nearly 10 years since the last Python was built. Because of that, it is more a collector than a shooter especially in light of the prices some of them bring now. The Dan Wesson could be added to the comparison as it is in production and in the same caliber.
 
Comparing a 686 to a GP-100 is valid as both are good revolvers and still in production. The Colt Python is a different deal as it has been nearly 10 years since the last Python was built. Because of that, it is more a collector than a shooter especially in light of the prices some of them bring now. The Dan Wesson could be added to the comparison as it is in production and in the same caliber.
Calling the Python a collector (which it certainly is to some) and the 686/GP a shooter makes no sense in the context of this "which is better" poll. It is what they have in common that must be compared.

I chose a decidedly unromantic if rather important criterion.

I mentioned my 1978 Dan partly to suggest it is no less a shooter than the others (and at the same time leave open to question whether the older Python and Dan might suffer under modern loads), and partly to suggest that what really matters here is that these three (and my Dan, and doubtless some others) excel in the .357 market.

Regarding this last point, I'm puzzled why some owners of top-tier guns need to berate ones of the same form-factor they do not possess.
 
Last edited:
Comparing a 686 to a GP-100 is valid as both are good revolvers and still in production. The Colt Python is a different deal as it has been nearly 10 years since the last Python was built. Because of that, it is more a collector than a shooter especially in light of the prices some of them bring now. The Dan Wesson could be added to the comparison as it is in production and in the same caliber.
^ +1

I whole heartedly agree with this statement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top