got it down to 686 or gp100!?
- Thread starter drvector
- Start date
Blue Heeler
Moderator
686 - The Ruger is agricultural by comparison.
I agree with utaherrn - TELL US HOW YOU POST THOSE PIX!
I agree with utaherrn - TELL US HOW YOU POST THOSE PIX!
629 shooter
New member
" a 6-inch version since I’m only interested in target shooting and potentially hunting, and it’s my understanding that the longer the barrel, the more accurately one can group shots."
I have owned 4 of the 686s and one of the GP100s. The single action triggers of the Smiths were far better than the GP100 or any other Ruger DA revolver I have owned. For target use like you mention a clean crisp trigger is a great asset. In fact in the gun club I belong to they hold pistol leagues and nearly everyone uses a Smith for the revolver matches.
As far as 4" vs 6" accuracy in revolvers it probably comes down to individual guns. Probably would need to shoot from a Ransom Rest or use a scope from a rest to see any significant differences.
The Ruger I owned was extremely accurate. Same for the Smiths. My current 686 is one of the drilled and taped models of around 1994. Shown in the attachment is a couple of groups fired using a scope/rest to test load accuracy - 6 and 12 shot groups @ 25 yards.
To me the new Smiths have become way over priced. I guess the same could be said of Ruger as well. But there is no way I would pay over $500 for the new 686s.
I have owned 4 of the 686s and one of the GP100s. The single action triggers of the Smiths were far better than the GP100 or any other Ruger DA revolver I have owned. For target use like you mention a clean crisp trigger is a great asset. In fact in the gun club I belong to they hold pistol leagues and nearly everyone uses a Smith for the revolver matches.
As far as 4" vs 6" accuracy in revolvers it probably comes down to individual guns. Probably would need to shoot from a Ransom Rest or use a scope from a rest to see any significant differences.
The Ruger I owned was extremely accurate. Same for the Smiths. My current 686 is one of the drilled and taped models of around 1994. Shown in the attachment is a couple of groups fired using a scope/rest to test load accuracy - 6 and 12 shot groups @ 25 yards.
To me the new Smiths have become way over priced. I guess the same could be said of Ruger as well. But there is no way I would pay over $500 for the new 686s.
Attachments
You mean the one that until recently was made by a foreign owned company?
I've shot both and own the GP100. I prefer the longer triggerpull of the Ruger. With some work and several thousand rounds, the GP100 slicks up quite nicely. Either gun will do the job, it comes down to personal preference at this point.
Chris
I'd own a new 13, 19, 27, or 586/686 if Smith made them like they used to, but of course they don't even bother to try anymore. . . . :barf: When Mutant Cockroaches rule the earth, some Roach archaeologist will find my GP-100 and just put a different grip on the stud, make up some ammunition, and fire it. 
I'll take "agricultural" six days a week and twice on Sunday compared to the "refinement" of any of the current Smith offerings. Heck, half of the posters in this thread are on one level or another trying to warn off prospective purchasers from buying a new one.
I'll take "agricultural" six days a week and twice on Sunday compared to the "refinement" of any of the current Smith offerings. Heck, half of the posters in this thread are on one level or another trying to warn off prospective purchasers from buying a new one.
I have shot both 686 and GP100 6". Recoil less in Ruger. Trigger was about the same in both. Accuracy too close to call. Since I liked shooting .357 Magnums and was using it as a hunting tool I bought the Ruger. The 686 was a 6 shot 1994 model and the Ruger was a 1999. If you like one over the other buy it! Either one will serve you well for target, hunting or home defense.
Brett
Brett
Blue Heeler
Moderator
My 686 6in is about 7 years old. It has always performed flawlessly. I can not fault it in any way. It has had a full trigger job, the forcing cone has been expanded and it has been re-crowned. All I have done is fit Davis grips and a Millet rear sight (front sight is adjustable) - and stuck a piece of skateboard tape on the front of the triggerguard. It is not a full custom gun by any means but it is extremely accurate and I shoot it in competition.
As to the GP100 - they're not bad, just different. They look purposeful and are solidly made. The factory grip doesn't suit me but that's easy fixed.
The big difference between the two is the trigger. And how important that is depends on what you are using the gun for. If it's hunting or plinking or any similar purpose either will be OK. But if you need a smooth and precise trigger for high speed competition then it is the Smith. That is why Smiths are almost unversally used in competition and Rugers are not.(the GP 100 that is - I know Rugers rule the roost in CAS.)
As to the GP100 - they're not bad, just different. They look purposeful and are solidly made. The factory grip doesn't suit me but that's easy fixed.
The big difference between the two is the trigger. And how important that is depends on what you are using the gun for. If it's hunting or plinking or any similar purpose either will be OK. But if you need a smooth and precise trigger for high speed competition then it is the Smith. That is why Smiths are almost unversally used in competition and Rugers are not.(the GP 100 that is - I know Rugers rule the roost in CAS.)
BusGunner007
New member
I'm gonna poke my nose in here and say something that just struck me:
It seems MANY of the S&W owners have 'tweaked' their revolvers somehow, akin to 1911 owners...it's like the gun is GREAT, but needs to be 'adjusted'.
Whereas, the Ruger owners largely just buy the gun and shoot the crap out of it - forever - without doing ANYTHING to it.
I guess the pistol equivalent would be the Beretta 92/96 --- it doesn't need anything other than to be shot.
Just a thought that struck me as I read more of the thread.
It seems MANY of the S&W owners have 'tweaked' their revolvers somehow, akin to 1911 owners...it's like the gun is GREAT, but needs to be 'adjusted'.
Whereas, the Ruger owners largely just buy the gun and shoot the crap out of it - forever - without doing ANYTHING to it.
I guess the pistol equivalent would be the Beretta 92/96 --- it doesn't need anything other than to be shot.
Just a thought that struck me as I read more of the thread.
I think it's more that S&W shooters buy a gun for the trigger, and Ruger guys go for, I don't know, blocky squarish styling?
And Ruger STILL won't sell you, lowly citizen that you are, an 11 round magazine for your 10-22. William B. Ruger, the man who declared that no honest citizen needed a magazine that holds more than 10 round, has a legacy that lives on in his company. Give them some money, go ahead.
Larry
And Ruger STILL won't sell you, lowly citizen that you are, an 11 round magazine for your 10-22. William B. Ruger, the man who declared that no honest citizen needed a magazine that holds more than 10 round, has a legacy that lives on in his company. Give them some money, go ahead.
Larry
Blue Heeler
Moderator
Some of us shoot competitons. There ain't many competition guns that don't get a 'tweak' sooner or later. Try firing one - handed, 6 rounds in 8 seconds and you'll see the difference a good trigger makes.
This is discussion comes up from time to time and is a classic example of how gun owners like to split hairs and exaggerate to "prove" that their FAVORITE is not just their favorite but is actually the "best".
Personal opinion leave a lot of wiggle room, but the group of people that believe the 686 is stronger and more durable than the GP100 is not very large. The GP100 is generally accepted to be pretty indestructible even under hard use that might be better described as abuse. The 686 is good for a lifetime (or two or three) of service if properly maintained, but it doesn't have same reputation for extreme durability and strength that the GP100 enjoys.
As far as trigger pulls, the 686 triggers tend to be better out of the box, but they are not "far superior" to the GP100 triggers nor are they ALWAYS better. I've had one 686 owner tell me that my 6" GP100 had a better trigger than his 686. On average the 686 trigger is going to be noticeably better, but not "night vs day" better in my experience.
And, if there's anything less relevant than hi-cap magazines to the argument of which revolver to buy, I can't think of it. Anyway, if we're going to get into company politics, S&W has one of the blackest histories of any U.S. gun companies. Maybe it's better, maybe it's not--as far as I can tell, the executive board is virtually unchanged from the group that signed the odious agreement with the government (when S&W was still a UK owned company) and that board, so far, has refused to publicly say that they renounce it. There's no way I'm going to give them credit for the fact that the government (under the current administration) has chosen not to enforce the agreement.
Both are fine revolvers, and both will provide a lifetime of service if properly maintained. Buy the one you like the best and shoot the best.
According to the Ruger and S&W websites, the 4" bbl 686 weighs a half an ounce MORE than the 4" GP100 and is 1/16 of an inch shorter in overall length. I think that weight and size are close enough so that we can PRETEND that there is no significant difference in these areas. At any rate, the GP100 is absolutely NOT heavier than the 686, nor is it appreciably larger than the 686.
Personal opinion leave a lot of wiggle room, but the group of people that believe the 686 is stronger and more durable than the GP100 is not very large. The GP100 is generally accepted to be pretty indestructible even under hard use that might be better described as abuse. The 686 is good for a lifetime (or two or three) of service if properly maintained, but it doesn't have same reputation for extreme durability and strength that the GP100 enjoys.
As far as trigger pulls, the 686 triggers tend to be better out of the box, but they are not "far superior" to the GP100 triggers nor are they ALWAYS better. I've had one 686 owner tell me that my 6" GP100 had a better trigger than his 686. On average the 686 trigger is going to be noticeably better, but not "night vs day" better in my experience.
And, if there's anything less relevant than hi-cap magazines to the argument of which revolver to buy, I can't think of it. Anyway, if we're going to get into company politics, S&W has one of the blackest histories of any U.S. gun companies. Maybe it's better, maybe it's not--as far as I can tell, the executive board is virtually unchanged from the group that signed the odious agreement with the government (when S&W was still a UK owned company) and that board, so far, has refused to publicly say that they renounce it. There's no way I'm going to give them credit for the fact that the government (under the current administration) has chosen not to enforce the agreement.
Both are fine revolvers, and both will provide a lifetime of service if properly maintained. Buy the one you like the best and shoot the best.
Nothing wrong with the 686, but I'm sort of a Ruger fan. Something else, too. . . If you are considering using this as a hunting gun, check your state's "Game & Fish" laws. F'rinstance, in Ohio handgun hunting for deer requires a minimum of .357 bore diameter, and 5" barrel length.
BusGunner007
New member
Blue Heeler says:
Well, no problem!
In real life, I'm Mr. Miculek... 
Well, no problem!
In real life, I'm Mr. Miculek...
shoots awe lots
New member
Both are sweet guns, but 4" or 6" or 8" barrell lenghts don,t mean better accuracy if you have a lousy trigger pull. Get some wolf springs out of Brownells, lightnen them up yourself.
tweaking
nothing wrong with tweaking. Firearms of the Ruger and S&W class are mass production items...drawers of parts...assembled and pushed out to the market. Tweaking was once done by the factories such as Colt with the python with handfitted masterwork going into each revolver...early S&W's were not far behind. (it's what the S&W customshop does NOW) To try and obtain that level of quality with the modern mass produced guns a person has to commence with the tweaking...ruger or smith, both will improve in your hand with competent workmanship. S&W does not seem to be what it once was...I don't own any of the new firing pin in frame titanium gooberguns myself, being an old man I had my S&W collection pretty well done before they made these new things and before S&W changed ownership and I've been fortunate since them to find and purchase some of the old quality guns as well. I'd suggest searching for the good old Smith's still out there while you can..and some good tweaking too...it will allow you a solid weapon you can be proud of. Besides, part of the fun and mastery is the gunwork. Bet Miculek would agree.
nothing wrong with tweaking. Firearms of the Ruger and S&W class are mass production items...drawers of parts...assembled and pushed out to the market. Tweaking was once done by the factories such as Colt with the python with handfitted masterwork going into each revolver...early S&W's were not far behind. (it's what the S&W customshop does NOW) To try and obtain that level of quality with the modern mass produced guns a person has to commence with the tweaking...ruger or smith, both will improve in your hand with competent workmanship. S&W does not seem to be what it once was...I don't own any of the new firing pin in frame titanium gooberguns myself, being an old man I had my S&W collection pretty well done before they made these new things and before S&W changed ownership and I've been fortunate since them to find and purchase some of the old quality guns as well. I'd suggest searching for the good old Smith's still out there while you can..and some good tweaking too...it will allow you a solid weapon you can be proud of. Besides, part of the fun and mastery is the gunwork. Bet Miculek would agree.
Deerinator
New member
I agree with the majority on this get either one and you will have a ball. They both shoot were you point them. grips are available to fit your hand better and they are both beautiful guns.
Boss Spearman
New member
I found a 3 inch gp100 today, $299 used at Gander Mountain. So I put it in layaway. It's a blued model. This is the first 3 inch version I have ever found, so I'm happy to find it.
Take it from someone who has both...
Both are top notch revolvers. I have both a 6" 686 and a 6" GP100...accuracy difference between the two is negligable. 1 hole ragged groups from a rest are easliy obtained with either. Fit goes to the ruger...mine locks up incredably tight despite the thousands of magnum rounds ive pounded it with. Everything o nthe gun is tight, the cylinder swings out and spins very smoothly and the trigger and hammer fit to the frame are excellent. Finish i would give to the smith. The smiths finish is just a tad bit nicer and they dont use the standard Ruger bilboard safety warnings and advertising on the barrels and frame. Single and double action triggers are better on the smith out of the box, but with a spring kit and some cleaning up the rugers is just as nice if not better. As far as the whole strength issue goes...well, ive put probably 4-5000 magnum rounds through each revolver and havent had any loosening up and the cylinder gap is still the same as when they were new. I did get a little bit of flame cutting on the top strap of my smith for the first 500 or so rounds, but it stopped and doesnt seem like its going to progress any further so it shouldnt be a problem.
Bottom line: Both are equally great revolvers, and the smith is great if you are willing to shell out a little bit more cash, but when it comes to bang for you buck, the ruger will win every time.
Both are top notch revolvers. I have both a 6" 686 and a 6" GP100...accuracy difference between the two is negligable. 1 hole ragged groups from a rest are easliy obtained with either. Fit goes to the ruger...mine locks up incredably tight despite the thousands of magnum rounds ive pounded it with. Everything o nthe gun is tight, the cylinder swings out and spins very smoothly and the trigger and hammer fit to the frame are excellent. Finish i would give to the smith. The smiths finish is just a tad bit nicer and they dont use the standard Ruger bilboard safety warnings and advertising on the barrels and frame. Single and double action triggers are better on the smith out of the box, but with a spring kit and some cleaning up the rugers is just as nice if not better. As far as the whole strength issue goes...well, ive put probably 4-5000 magnum rounds through each revolver and havent had any loosening up and the cylinder gap is still the same as when they were new. I did get a little bit of flame cutting on the top strap of my smith for the first 500 or so rounds, but it stopped and doesnt seem like its going to progress any further so it shouldnt be a problem.
Bottom line: Both are equally great revolvers, and the smith is great if you are willing to shell out a little bit more cash, but when it comes to bang for you buck, the ruger will win every time.