[Shoobedoo]

Smith & Wesson 686 or Ruger GP-100 in .357 Magnum... if you could choose only one, which would it be, and why..?? I once owned a Ruger Security Six .357, one of the finest revolvers I've ever owned, but the classic lines of the Smith 686 are hard to resist...

 

[FIVESHOT]

GP 100 hands down . Stronger , better made ,

more reliable , durable . . . . . nuff said .



FIVESHOT

 

[DK PHILLIPS]

586...blue of the 686.... has out shot 4 pythons of my own.. over its life time.....
snakes gone now!
the smith waiting for the next snake to rear its head! Rugers are ok but accuracy'S in the Smith

don't get me wrong
i love my Colts......BUT!
.....

 

[Gunsel]

Smith & Wesson 686 or Ruger GP-100 in .357 Magnum... if you could choose only one, which would it be, and why..?? I once owned a Ruger Security Six .357, one of the finest revolvers I've ever owned, but the classic lines of the Smith 686 are hard to resist...

Years ago went with a 6" GP 100.Boat ,backpacking,hunting. Heavy loaded I figure it to to have ample penetration for anything.Stout and overbuilt it will outlast me and whoever gets it next.

 

[JB]

I have examples of each. The 686 is a smoother, better made gun. The GP100 are tough guns, but they just aren't as refined as the 686 by a long shot.

 

[dfariswheel]

686.
It's a much more refined revolver, stronger and more compact at a lighter weight. This flies in the face of what everyone "knows" about the "stronger" Ruger. See below(..)

It'll almost certainly be more accurate.

It's action can be tuned to a far smoother, better feel.

FAR more accessories, grips, holsters, etc are available.

Much easier to get spare parts if needed. Many Ruger parts are restricted and won't be sold by the factory. Few parts houses have any restricted Ruger parts.

Resale value will be higher.

If it matters to you, the status of owning a S&W is higher then the Ruger.

(..) In the 1980's there was the famous S&W-Ruger "Burger War".
Ruger started it with ads intimating that Ruger's cast steel guns were stronger then S&W because they were beefier.
Some genius at S&W responded with what might be the most devastating magazine ad in American history.
After it appeared, Ruger withdrew their ad and slinked off.

 

[armyrat1970]

GP-100.

 

[hijack]

I have to agree with dfariswheel if an opinion, from a guy with dirty fingers, means any thing. According the local firearms registration board, more Rugers are registered here, than any other handgun. The call for tuning, coming through my door, is much larger for the Ruger. All manufacturing seems to have overlooked the "Dirty Fingers" part of the output. Some have been so concerned with getting the product to the sales floor, that they have neglected you and me as the least important part of the equation. The average Ruger owner that calls me wants to know, first of all, "How much does it cost?", compared to the Smith owner who says, I want the double action stoke to be a mystry as to whether I'm at the start of the stoke, or the end. Truly I have owned several Ruger hand guns,as well as many other companies.(snakes and horseys,ect.) Currently only S&W's Live here and are shot with confident results. Not trying to discredit anybodies product, just sharing personal experience. Good luck, Hijack

 

[DrMike]

I have had my 686 since 1987 and have shoot 1000's of rounds through it- its by far the most accurate handgun I own. I have fired way too many over the top handloads in my early 20's trying for even more power and despite my supidity-the gun has never failed to perform perfectly. Ruger does make a great gun-reliable and sturdy, but every Ruger I have owned needed work to really shoot-mostly due to the triggers. I would hold and try to shoot both and see what fits you better- its as simple as that.

 

[Ol Duke In Memoriam]

I have a 686 and I don't have a GP100, so, I can't compare from experience. Generally, I'm a Ruger guy since I have numerous 10-22's, an SR9, LCP and a new LC9 that I just bought and I have several old Smith's but, that being said, I'll have to go with the 686...for me, aesthetics is all I have to compare...

 

[Dutoy]

Smith & Wesson 686 or Ruger GP-100 in .357 Magnum... if you could choose only one, which would it be, and why..?? I once owned a Ruger Security Six .357, one of the finest revolvers I've ever owned, but the classic lines of the Smith 686 are hard to resist...

Smith and Wesson trigger. Just pull the triggers and compare.

 

[Clyde]

Really depends on what i was going to be doing with the gun. For rough and tumble with exposure to dirt, rough handling, etc., I'd probably go with the Ruger. For pleasure in handling, probable accuracy superiority, quality of fit, finish and trigger, take the Smith.

It may suggest something that I have (at the moment) four S&W revolvers and two Rugers (both Rugers are SAs, a Super Single Six and a Blackhawk).

 

[oldgoat46]

The GP 100 is a bullet proof work horse of a hand gun. They need a little smoothing of the trigger but I have quite a few pistols and the 6" GP is the one I carry most often when I walk the swamp and bush looking for abandoned equipment. It will not let you down.

 

[lee1959]

I recently got to shoot some of my brother in laws revolvers when he bought a new 686. They werea 20 year old 568, a brand new out of the box 686 7 shot, and a year old GP100, along with several of my own .357 magnums. I found that the trigger on the older 586 was smoother than the GP100, but that I could feel no real discernable difference between the GP100 and the new Smith. Granted the GP100 had some rounds through it which may have smoothed it a bit.

My old (30 years?)Taurus 66 btw was the smoothest of them all.

Which would I buy, whichever felt best in my hand. Unless I was going to shoot a LOT of full magnums, in which case I would pobably go with the GP100. I have owned, and or own both Rugers and Smiths and see little difference in accuracy personally. But then again I am a hunter, not bullseye shooter.

 

[Lone Star]

No one has mentioned The Lock on the newer Smiths. It was a primary reason why I bought the Ruger, which has been very satisfactory. The trigger "wore-in" very well, quite smooth and even. I do own other S&W's and had an older M-686. I liked it, but it was a bit barrel heavy compared to the GP-100.

Also, I think the Ruger will hold its cylinder timing longer than will the S&W.

You cannot compare older guns to new ones, as the older ones have worn in more and smoothed up. Lee1959 forgot that issue in his post above..

 

[lee1959]

No one has mentioned The Lock on the newer Smiths. It was a primary reason why I bought the Ruger, which has been very satisfactory. The trigger "wore-in" very well, quite smooth and even. I do own other S&W's and had an older M-686. I liked it, but it was a bit barrel heavy compared to the GP-100.

Also, I think the Ruger will hold its cylinder timing longer than will the S&W.

You cannot compare older guns to new ones, as the older ones have worn in more and smoothed up. Lee1959 forgot that issue in his post above..

No, I didnt. If you read carefully you will notice I specifically was VERY careful to mention the age of each revolver, and the fact that even though the Ruger was only a year old it had been shot a bit which possibly smoothed it out. therefore the results would be effected by such, but it was the closest thing to shooting both an old Smith, a new Smith, and a new Ruger as is practically possible, thus comparing older Smiths with newer versions, to a new Ruger, at least for my comparison purposes.

 

[JB]

No one has mentioned The Lock on the newer Smiths. It was a primary reason why I bought the Ruger, which has been very satisfactory.

To me the lock has no bearing on buying a new S&W. It's very easy to remove if someone has fears about it breaking and locking up on it's own.

 

[Krag]

Get a 686-Plus (7 shooter). I have a pair I used for bowling pin matches for a decade firing heavy 180 gr. handloads and they have NEVER given me a bit of trouble. The Smith is a finer made revo and you will never get as good a trigger on a Ruger.