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
I tend to agree with the comment about spring kits. I don't alter main springs EVER and will only alter a return spring if it's obviously unrealistically heavy.

It is possible to slick up a GP100 trigger. It's not going to match a Colt or S&W trigger, but neither will it hamper a shooter from firing accurately. The GP100 trigger is NOWHERE near a "bad" trigger, just not as "refined" as some others out there.

The S&W and Colt fans hang their hat on the GP100 "trigger issue" because that's pretty much the only bone they can pick.

As I said earlier, I'm NOT saying that the other revolvers are garbage--I have even recommended S&W revolvers to family members. The question was about durability and in that realm the Ruger rules.
 
Try this:

Search your reload manuals for "SMITH & WESSON ONLY" loads.

Can't find any? WHAT?!!! :eek:

"Refinement" just isn't as durable.
It's a 'Ginger vs. MaryAnn' argument.

I'll take MaryAnn. :D
 
Somebody show me a 60 year old Ruger revolver first...

None? Well that's because they're not as durable as Smiths! ;) :p

Yay! I just settled the S&W v Ruger debate!
 
The trigger issue is an important one. How many high profile folks compete with Ruger wheelies? ........ ........ ........
 
pwrtool,

You must have a Ruger... ;) :D

Seriously, the guy asked a question. There is a difference in strength and durability. There's a difference in appearance too, and in trigger quality. The list goes on. The S&W's win in some categories, the Rugers win in others. Durability goes to the Ruger.

Does it make a difference to a guy who goes shooting every other month and has 20 handguns? Nope--he'll probably never wear any of them out unless he fancies Hi-Points. Does it make a difference to a guy who wants ONE revolver and intends to practice with full magnum loads ALL the time and goes shooting twice a month? Yes, it does.
 
Either way, if you do manage to wear either gun out, they can be restored to factory condition with minimal effort. I had an old smith 28 .357 that probably saw probably close to 50,000 HOT rounds between me and a buddy of mine(was actually his i kept it for him and eventually bought it off him for 50 bucks! :D ) It was an UGLY gun...most of the finish had been rubbed off as it was an highway patrol trade in and was tossed between pickup cabs on a daily basis. In that time, the lock up did become a little loose and the cylinder gap did open up a little...it still shot great, but it did need a little tuning. A quick trip to S&W and they made it like new, did a great trigger job and charged me practically nothing. You will never completly wear out either revolver...EVENTUALLY either or will need work, thats just a given...that amount of time will depend on what you shoot through it and how well you take care of it. I like my Smiths and my Rugers...both have their highs and lows but if i had to pick just one for quality and joy of ownership it would be the Smith.
 
Search your reload manuals for "SMITH & WESSON ONLY" loads.
Click to expand...
All my manuals are packed away right now so I can't check it, but I don't recall any Ruger only .357magnum loads. The only loads I recall marked Ruger, T/C and Freedom Arms are for the .45 Colt. :confused:

BTW, I do think the issue of cast vs forged has something to do with it beyond just design. If the Ruger is stronger, based on design, I'll concede that they are in fact stronger when Ruger comes out with a J Frame sized .357Mag.

Again though, I keep going back to the fact that, it's all academic. Somehow this thread went from "going to a gunsmith" to "shooting to destruction".

And FWIW - my 1988 Toyota 4x4 (the last of the small window extended cabs) is still going strong ,,,FWIW.
 
Personally, how long a gun lasts is a dead-last consideration. It's how well it fits its intended application that counts with me. When my PM9 dies, I'll simply get another.
 
I own three medium frame revolvers: two Ruger KGP-141s and a Smith 686. Based on tens-of-thousands of rounds fired, I can assure you that both are OUTSTANDING in every respect. Without doubt, the GP-100 design is marginally more durable and structurally stronger than the S&W L Frame, BUT EITHER A GP-100 OR AN L FRAME IS VERY LIKELY TO OUTLIVE ITS OWNER, with reasonable maintenance.
 
SP101?
Click to expand...
Same thing as the Gp vs 686 only scaled down.

The SP101 is just a little bit larger than the Smith model 60.


(I'm going to do a 180 here so hold on...)

Between the SP101 and the Smith 60 - I'd go with the SP any day of the week. I find the J frame Smith's very lacking in any number of areas.

Again - It's all academic.
 
Hal,

I don't do the "my gun is better than yours." I own a lot of different brands and I realize that they all have different strengths and weaknesses. The guy asked which gun would need less professional attention over 60 years and I honestly believe that the answer to that question is GP100.

The only revolver in my immediate experience that has ever gone out of time was a 686. The only revolver in my immediate experience with excessive endshake was also a S&W product. Most of my experience has been with Rugers, so what it amounts to is that even with a smaller sample set of S&W revolvers than Ruger revolvers I've seen more problems with the S&W revolvers.

That matches with what I see on the web as well.

A well made casting (and Ruger probably makes the best quality castings in the world--they even cast jet engine turbines--a fairly high stress part where reliability is paramount) can actually be stronger than a forging. It turns out that the grain in forged metal is actually a weakness and give the steel a place to begin to fail. I'm not saying that cast parts are stronger than forged parts, just that it's not valid to automatically assume the opposite. Also, from what I've seen of the S&W problems, one of the main ones is that their stainless alloy can be a bit soft. I tend to think that Jeffro might have had different results had he been shooting a stainless Smith.

REMEMBER! Both my sister and my mother own S&W revolvers. My sister at my recommendation and my mother because I gave her one. I AM NOT SAYING S&W REVOLVERS ARE GARBAGE. I am saying that the GP100 is noticeably more durable than the 686.
 
John,
Please - where in any of my posts have I said "my gun is better than yours"?

Lesse, right now I own 1,2,3,4,5 ... five cast Rugers.(to be fair though none are D/A) If I was going to go out and get a carry/HD/do everything revolver - a Ruger Alaskan has edged out a Smith 329PD on my short list. If I thought Rugers were inferior in any way, I'd dump them or cross them off my list.

If I wanted a small pocket type like a 60 or an SP101, I'd get the 101. Even though I don't care for the Ruger trigger, it sucks less for me on that small of a pistol.

Again, and again, I feel it's academic. Both products are built to handle a lifetime of SAAMI spec loads. In the case of the Smith - if it doesn't you send it back. - lifetime warranty. If the Ruger doesn't, then you send it back,,and pay if it's outside of the warranty.

Go overbook, and I believe you get exactly what you end up with either way.
 
Just a question, how is a spring kit a "crutch" if by all observations, my GP-100 was "oversprung" to begin with?

Just because a factory does something doesn't mean they did it for the right reasons. In this example, Ruger uses mainsprings that are IMHO, used to provide a "lawyer friendly" trigger pull rather than provide balance between performance and user friendliness. My GP-100 sports a 10#-10# Main and trigger return spring combo and has never failed to light off anything in over 3500 rounds since the change out.

If that is a "crutch" I'll take being crippled anytime. :D
 
Springs will only lighten the trigger pull...not get rid of creep, roughness or overtravel like a good smith can do with a trigger job. No springs in the world will compare to a quality trigger or a trigger job.
 
I am not promoting springs as a cure all. Fortunately, if you are the least bit mechanically inclined, you can slick up a Ruger yourself as one can completely detail strip it without special tools. A few judiciously applied honing stones, while preserving the proper geometry, and it slicks up very nicely. For the less adventurous, plenty of gunsmiths will improve Ruger triggers for the ailments you mention. Then again, except for refinishing, I have been working on my own guns for about fifteen years, so I am not gun shy about the task.

I am not saying one can get a Ruger trigger to equal the best gunsmith massaged S&W triggers, because mechanically, they are too different for that to be possible. However, it cannot be underestimated how easy it is, DOING IT YOURSELF, to bring a stock Ruger trigger into easy parity with a factory stock S&W trigger pull.

BTW, I have fired a Ruger revolver worked on by Bowen Classic Arms and I'd put that one up against almost every non-Python revolver I have ever fired. Making a Ruger trigger excellent is by no means impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top