GP100 vs 686

I own both and have shot both a lot in the past. I consider myself a S&W guy, so religion-wise I lean that way. BUT, in the past 2 1/2 years, since I have been able to get back into shooting large calibers again I find I only take the Ruger out. The Smith has gotten pushed to the back of the safe. the Ruger fits me better and after it went back to Ruger for a gritty trigger issue it is a superior trigger to the Smith. I have never taken either one down to clean it, see no need to so that is a non issue to me.

I vote for the GP100

David
 
It seems 50-50 in preference.

So obviously the GP 100 is the winner.
And the 686 is the winner as well.

That also means 50 percent of the
posters don't know what they're
talking about or just stubborn and
wrong-headed.

A first for a gun forum.
 
For general cleaning the S&W was easier. One screw and the cylinder and crane slide right off. The crane slides off the cylinder and it makes it real easy to clean.
On the GP you have to remove the grips, mainspring, push in a nub and slide the guts out. The crane does not separate from the cylinder easily. However, it makes for a much easier detail disassembly though.

The smith had a better trigger, period. The GP has a nice double action trigger.
Click to expand...

Having owned both at the same time and firing many times at the same shooting session I have the same experience as the above post. For target use the Smith single action wins hands down for me. In the revolver bullseye league I used to shoot in nearly everyone shot a Smith. In double action I thought both were pretty good.

I now longer have my original 686 or my GP100. But do currently have a couple 1990s 686s. I have come close to adding a GP100 again a few times and like the easily replaced front sight. I can no longer clearly see the orange ramp Smith sight these days but the 686 with the drilled and tapped frame made it easy to use a red dot. With a GP100 a HiViz style sight would be an easy upgrade.
 
I own both.
I like both.
I've shot many additional variants of each model line.

Speaking of my own revolvers, a ~2010 .327 Federal GP100 4" and a 1988 .357 Mag 'Midnight Black' 686 6":
For robustness, longevity, and ease of basement workbench upgrades, I would lean toward the Ruger.
For more refinement and slightly less weight, I would grab the S&W.

I, personally, prefer the factory Ruger grips over the factory S&W grips, as well. But that's something that's easily changed with either model line, and is highly personal.


I think the most telling things about the comparison of my own are the following:
1. When I go hunting and want a sidearm smaller than a .44 Mag but bigger than my SP101, I grab the GP100. I trust it. I know it's accurate. It can take a beating better than the 686, should I do something stupid like falling down a rock face or rolling the ATV.
2. The GP100 has been clean, preserved, packed in the original box, and ready to be sold for almost five months (along with a couple other decent firearms), to finance a big step in another direction. ...But I can't bring myself to do it. Everything else can go, and many other things already have. But I can't bring myself to sell the GeeP. I think I could get myself to sell the 686 before the GP100...
 
Turns out a friend at work has a 686 so I'm going to get some range time on Friday. No GP100 to shoot, I'll just have to "remember" how it was I guess.
 
Since FM weighed in, I will. :)
Three years ago I did a head to head.
After which, I bought the Ruger & returned the Smith.

The Smith shot fractionally tighter at 25 yards off the bench, but the Ruger had cleaner machining in the barrel.

Both triggers can be worked on.
I don't much like the sights on either.

I dislike the internals & lock on the new Smiths.
I'm not happy with the MIM trigger on the GP, but MIMs are minimal in the GP.

The new Smith uses an electro-chemical rifling that doesn't always work well with lead.
The Ruger still uses conventional rifling methods.

I trust the Ruger to be more durable & to be less inclined go out of time over the long haul.
The Smith can be tuned to a "better" trigger, but not by much.

I find the Smith easier to get the guts out of, down to the individual part level.
The Ruger's modular trigger group is not as simple to break down.

Both brands have been subject to Canted Barrel Syndrome in recent years.
Both brands tend to need grip replacements.

My latest make-over revolver project was a vintage 686 4-incher, which (among other things) got Bowen sights and custom grips.
My current not-yet-finished make-over revolver project is a 7-shot Ruger GP with 2.5 barrel in .357, which has Bowen sights so far. More work scheduled.

I own a handful of GPs, and my oldest is 30.
I had an L-Frame Smith 35 years ago, when they first came out.
I've had a couple since.

I think the edge for durability is clearly Ruger, the edge for refinement clearly S&W.
Both can be upgraded, accuracy about the same on both.

The only two issues I'm aware of with Ruger's sights are a tendency for the rear sight pin to walk (easily fixed), and the way the rear sight's designed.
In some holsters (and rare cases) that bear against the sight enough to depress it, the elevation screw can work loose under continual wearing, changing point of impact.

I've never experienced that, and never known anybody who has.

I've started to go with Bowen's sights on revolver upgrades in both brands, mostly for visibility.
The white-outline rear blade can be a little dim in both.
Staying factory, S&W probably has a better rear sight

When my son-in-law recently decided he wanted a .357, I steered him into the Ruger, now at the gunsmith getting a work-over.
Of the two brands in CURRENT manufacture, I think the Ruger is the best choice for longevity & quality overall.

Both need after-factory work to maximize beyond factory levels.
Either one will be adequate out of the box for most shooters, aside from the QC issues common to both.
Denis
 
Last edited:
I have had both and both are fine, still have my Smith.
Really depends on your personal likes and dislikes.
S&W has an awesome SA trigger, both have a decent DA.
For myself, I like the exposed back and front strap on the Smith. Lends itself to some nice looking grip options (panel grips with a Tyler Grip Adapter).:)
I do wish the new ones had the fine vertical lines of the older ones though.

So it all comes down to this; which one would Dirty Harry buy?:rolleyes:
 
I have a 4 inch 686 and a 3 inch barrel GP 100. The GP 100 stays in my home office desk ready for use, the 686 stays in the safe. Nothing against the 686 but the slightly smaller GP is more to my liking.
 
I lean toward Rugers ... But the 686 is a heck of a revolver ..
You can't go wrong ... Both are great

If you want a six shot .. the Security Six is my choice .,
 
Thanks Cat.
I've had to have a front sight cleaned up on one Ruger, but otherwise I've not noticed a major problem with the Ruger sights.

I understand the mechanical possibility for the rear to wander, but I've never had it happen in any of mine, going back to 1976.

I do agree with Grant that the best sights for the Ruger (AND the Smith) are Bowen's. :)
Denis
 
GP100 if you want longevity and low maintenance. Back in the days ('70s), Ruger Security Six (and its stable mates) would absorb more abuse than Colt (Python, Police Positive & Detective Specials) or S&W (name your model revolver) and keep working. I believe that still applies today.
 
My review is based on today's production of both Ruger and Smith and not the Smith or Ruger of yesterday year. I'm being quite stubborn on this. I can't compare the older versions. I can only compare the 2 that I have bought in the past 2 years. Anytime a company states that there's a 4 month waiting time to to simple repairs, that leads me to believe that they are having more problems then they would like the Public to know. I believe all of you about Smith being a better revolver but that's "IN THE PAST". We, the average Joe's, are concerned with today not yesterday. We don't have the expertise to do this or that. We just know enough that one is a better fir that that other & for me it's the Ruger.
 
Today, among current production, I feel the Ruger is the better gun, overall.
And that's after comparing both head to head.

I do not like what S&W has done to the 686.
Denis
 
As "internal safeties", GP100s use a transfer bar, whereas the 686 uses a hammer block. They essentially do opposite functions. The transfer bar of the GP100 transfers the energy of the hammer strike to the firing pin. I can't say I've ever measured it, but logic tells me some "oomph" is lost in the transfer and, as a result, the GP100 action can't be tuned quite as aggressively as the S&Ws. Logic also tells me the GP100 is instantly disabled if the transfer bar breaks, whereas a broken hammer block won't disable a 686 (unless the broken piece falls into the lockwork and ties it up).
Click to expand...

This is true. I had a transfer bar break on a Vaquero. Ruger made it right, but while it was broken the guy was out of commission.
 
I've had several examples of both over the years. I think DPris summed it up pretty well. I don't disagree with anything he said. But I still had a slight preference for the Smith even though I thought the Ruger would hold up to abuse better.

But after buying a used Smith 28, I sold both the GP-100 and 686.
 
Just to throw in something other than the binary choices discussed above i recommend you try the new Dan Wesson. (Your budget allowing) You’ll be impressed with the build quality and accuracy. Swapping out the springs for some Wolff springs makes it feel like a $400 Smith trigger job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top