Durabilty: Ruger GP-100 vs. S&W 686

Which is more durable?

  • Ruger GP-100

    Votes: 50 78.1%

  • Smith & Wesson 686

    Votes: 14 21.9%
  • Total voters
    64
D

Dave85

New member
This is a simple two-way race:

Which is the more robust gun? Triggers don't count. Grip feel isn't a factor for consideration. Finish is irrelevant to this discussion. The only question at hand is this: over the course of sixty years, which one do you think will require less professional attention?
 
The Ruger will probably outlast the Smith, but given proper care, they will probably both outlast you. The smith is a much nicer gun in my opinion...i know its not a factor as you state, but the fit, finish, and shootability is just more refined with the smith...better sights, a MUCH nicer trigger, more comfortable in the hand, etc.
 
I just can't pick one over the other if durability is the only factor. Smaller and "weaker" S&W's have been around longer than Ruger has existed and some of those guns are still in use today. The "L" frame is too young to say if it is any more or any less durable than the Ruger.

A domestic pick up truck can last about 40 years. A toyota truck can hold up about half that time with the same use. That does not mean one is better than the other. Just ask yourself how many 1980 Toyota trucks you see on the road compared to a 1980 F-series. I see about 500 to 1 in favor of the Ford. Do I think a Ford is a more reliable truck? Nope. Do I think American brand trucks are built stronger for a longer service life? Yep.
 
In my hands, the Ruger would win hands down-simply because I don't like their triggers or grip, and would never shoot it. :)


Larry
 
Not to hijack this thread or anything but Im sorry, i see ALOT more older toyotas vs old fords on the road! :D Coming from a guy whos driven fords all his life, Ive yet to see MOST ford trucks go 200000+ on a motor where as most toyotas are just gettin broken in!
 
One is reliable, durable, and will fire any .357 rounds without a problem. The other is not as reliable, not as durable, and has issues down the road firing a steady diet of the hotter rounds. It's amazing the things we will give up to have a smoother trigger.
 
I didn't mention the motor. I was talking about the structural strength. Rest assured if you see more old toyotas it is a fluke. I am a used car dealer and see all the numbers in my trade publications.
 
One is reliable, durable, and will fire any .357 rounds without a problem. The other is not as reliable, not as durable, and has issues down the road firing a steady diet of the hotter rounds. It's amazing the things we will give up to have a smoother trigger.
Click to expand...
If your stating that the 686 isnt relaible, your HIGHLY mistaken! :rolleyes:
 
One is cast and the other is forged.
I'd pick something forged to outlast something cast over the long run.

Anyhow,,,it's all academic. Only an idiot or a lazy fool pushes their tool into doing something it's not intended for.
 
No contest!

Ive never owned a GP100, but I HAVE owned a service six, which is almost the exact same gun, and I own a S&W686+, and I can tell you that the Smith is every bit as durable as the Ruger. And, in my humble opinion, superior in every way that matters. tEven though the Smith is a thoroughbred it is also a Clydesdale.
 
Last edited:
Those Smiths had better last a good long while because they aren't making them anymore.

Sure, there is something on the market purporting to be S&W, but I see MIM trigger and hammer groups, laser etchings instead of roll marks, a silly looking nipple lock, blue models only in the Model 10 or from the PC, and I say to myself, I am glad I own a Ruger GP that lacks all of those "features," because the Smiths worth having, the ones not made anymore, are only going to get more expensive over time.
 
Wow. Twenty-eight people have voted on this poll, and I can guarantee that there aren't that many people on this board that have shot either one to scrap.

Conclusion: Some people are repeating what they've heard. :eek:

Durablity? Maybe you should get a .357 Redhawk? Something even more durable? At some point, extra "durability" stops producing any sort of result other than added weight or cost. A 16" ship gun in .357 isn't going to be any more durable than a T/C Contender in .357.

The premise of your question doesn't take any of this into account and as such will yield an answer that will be misleading at best.
 
Maybe we should search the gun forums for the problems reported with the 686 and compare them to the problems reported with the GP-100?
 
I'd like to see any real information on this subject, like maybe an HP White test. Because both of these guns are about the same size and weight an the S&W is made out of forged steel as opposed to cast. I don't think there is much difference either way but I really doubt that the Ruger is any stronger.


And my Dad will Kick anybody elses Dad's ass who disagrees with me. ;)
 
Considering you're only worried about 60 years of use, as long as you aren't trying to stuff your .357 cases with as much powder as they could possibly fit day in and day out, neither gun should give up the ghost.

So, if you can afford a 686, I'd go with it.
It's a more refined gun than the ruger. I'd still be searching the used racks for a pre-lock model, though. I tend to like older S&Ws over the new ones.

If your idea of fun is to see how much powder your .357 cases can fit, go for the Ruger, though. It's built to take more abuse, and blowing it up will make your wallet cry a little less, too.

I'm all about older, blued S&W 66s myself.
There's just something about a blued K-frame with wood grips :)
 
I've never heard of a GP100 being shot to scrap by anyone--and only VERY rarely hear of any problems with them at all. That's kind of the point...

On the other hand, a friend of mine bought a new 686 and managed to shoot it out of time twice in the first couple of years he owned it--even though he didn't shoot it a lot. That doesn't mean the gun is garbage--in fact I bought it from him when he decided to sell it. However, it does say something for the durability of the design (or lack thereof).

BTW the steel in the guns has very little to do with how strong they are. The design is the issue, and the Ruger tends to hold up much better--particularly with a lot of shooting using full magnum loads. I've got a GP100 that has had a steady diet of several thousand full power 125 gr JHP magnum loads. It looks new and still shoots perfectly. Cylinder gap and endshake are still as tight as a new model I looked at recently.
 
And though Smith owners talk about refinement as if it is some unattainable quality on a Ruger, such is in fact a phone call to Wolff Gunsprings away. My Ruger's action feels as smooth as, albeit a little different than, any Smith I have ever fired.

Neither one has a trigger that is like a well maintained classic Colt Python for instance.
 
Spring kits are a crutch and should never be used on a serious handgun.

If you think a Ruger action is smooth with a $5 spring kit then you should really check out a tuned S&W. It will blow your mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top