GP100 vs 686

To retire my Python to the ‘inactive’ list, i wanted a replacement as close to as good as the Python as I could get. I handled a lot of pistols, including the Ruger, but bought the 686+. It felt great in the hand, with the Hogue grip. I preferred it over the Ruger. The 686 shot great, but wasn’t as smooth in DA as the Python and the SA trigger pull wasn’t as good. So, off to a local gunsmith for a tuneup, and now i have a terrific shooting pistol. The SA trigger pull is perfect and the DA pull might now be better than the Python’s. I really thought i’d miss the Python, but I don’t. I do prefer the target type hammer on the Python, and the Python is shinier. Man, i can shoot that 686 though.
 
You'd need to talk to the Bowen people about a Security-Six.
If he doesn't have a standard sight that'd fit, he could probably do you a custom fabrication.
Denis
 
I was in a similar situation as 603country. Being something of a big bore fanatic the only .357 I have ever owned is the Python bought 40 some years ago. Quit shooting mags out of it ages ago. Decided I wanted a new .357 to shoot some boomers out of. Started looking around and couldn't find any pre-lock 686's in either 4 or 6 inch configurations and just couldn't warm up to the Ruger offerings. Decided to go with a new Dan Wesson 715 and couldn't be happier for the following reasons:
Great trigger pull both DA and SA.
Shortest DA pull I've ever experienced.
Interchangeable barrel lengths.
No locks.
Only complaint is I can't find a set of Roper style grips for it.
 
686 pre lock.

Not a fan of what Ruger is doing to the GP line, but they are solid guns. I still like the Smith, but only if it's an older 686.
 
Brutus, it’s interesting that you and i were thinking about the same thing in wanting a new revolver to handle fullpower loads. I didn’t want to damage the Python. I did not consider the Dan Wesson, not knowing it was an option. As for lock/prelock on the 686, i didn’t care. I did get the 7 shooter, and i suppose that’s a Plus (no pun intended).

After the tuneup, i can’t imagine a more accurate pistol than this new 686. If the Dan Wesson was more accurate, I’d never know it. I’m a decent shot, but more accuracy than i have would be wasted on me.
 
I've had my GP100 since about 1990 and have never had the rear sight issues that were discussed in the link. I replaced the front sight with a Hi-Viz sight and have been very happy with that.

I don't have a 686, but I do have a model 66 for comparison; I carry it every day. Both the Ruger and S&W are great revolvers that have given me solid service. (I also have a 3" original 357 magnum from 1956, but that's an unfair comparison!) Either one of these guns shouldn't disappoint.
 
I have owned both and they are both great revolvers. Seemed to me with a variety of light to hunting loads the Smith was a bit more accurate or should I say easier to load for but, I have always found loads for the GP 100 that were very accurate. If I were to give you advise I would tell you to put both in your hands and pick the one that feels better to you. IMHO you can't go wrong with either choice.
 
I have both and would urge you to avoid the S&W if it has ECM rifling, assuming you want to shoot lead bullets or be able to have that option. The Ruger doesn't lead near like the newer Smiths do, and you can see that the rifling is better defined. The Smith trigger is seductive, but it just means you don't have as much skill on a trigger and don't pull the gun off sight, when the touch is light. The Ruger requires that you follow through 100%, maintaining that sight picture.
 
Radny97 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh great, another option!

It's a little pricier and I'm not likely to find one at a range to shot, but it is tempting.
 
The Ruger doesn't lead near like the newer Smiths do, and you can see that the rifling is better defined.
Click to expand...
Correct cast bullet loads do not lead. If there is leading, something is wrong...too small throats, too soft of an alloy, too hot of a load. How the rifling is formed has naught to do with leading.
 
The problem in general may be reliance on purchased bullets. It is not so simple as just being an expert on customizing bullets. You can't just imply that a person is inadequate as a reloader because leading problems are encountered. That patronizing from bullet casters gets old. When a gun has mechanical issues, there isn't necessarily a magic bullet to make it right.


Then there is this from DPris:

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

It is not correct to pronounce the type of rifling irrelevant. I have a $1000 625 PC bought to replace a 625JM, because the Performance Center version has cut rifling and works fine with lead, while the 625JM was a nightmare.
 
Last edited:
The problem in general may be reliance on purchased bullets. It is not so simple as just being an expert on customizing bullets. You can't just imply that a person is inadequate as a reloader because leading problems are encountered. That patronizing from bullet casters gets old. When a gun has mechanical issues, there isn't necessarily a magic bullet to make it right.
Click to expand...
A competent, skilled bullet caster can diagnose a leading problem and correct the issue. If you do not like to be patronized, work on obtaining the requisite skills (it is not rocket science) involving your chosen hobby or buy jacketed bullets and stop casting aspersions on those of us who have.
 
dahermit said:
A competent, skilled bullet caster can diagnose a leading problem and correct the issue. If you do not like to be patronized, work on obtaining the requisite skills (it is not rocket science) involving your chosen hobby or buy jacketed bullets and stop casting aspersions on those of us who have.
Click to expand...
I don't think the under-handed insults are necessary.

Nor do I think you are correct.
Barrel leading can not always be solved by tweaking alloys, trying every lube under the sun, adding gas checks, changing bullet diameter, or lapping the barrel.
Some barrels just don't get along with lead.
 
The rifling in the 686 has been noted by numerous shooters over a period of several years to not deal well with lead.

It's the rifling, it's not a matter of searching for the right bullet/lube combination.
Denis
 
I have had GPs & 586s ( don't do SS guns) I will have to say I liked the 586 better. The S&W is a lot smoother action. I'll have to throw this in, I like a S&W m19 better than
either one. It has slickness of S&W without the extra wieght. The S&W m27 is a fine 357
but is to heavy and bulky to pack around. M28 is same way. If I am going to carry a gun
that big it might as well be 44 or 45.
 
I have 2 recent production 642's and 1 637 that get mostly 100% lead shot through them. Never a issue, maybe the lower velocity is playing a role here?
 
S&W has been using the new style rifling in most of their revolver barrels larger than .22 caliber since 1993, I believe. While it does not appear to be a well as defined as older "broach" cut rifling, it is more precise, more consistent from barrel to barrel and results in less stress on the barrel itself. The tools used last a long time and can do the rifling in a much shorter length of time than older more traditional methods. This makes it much more effective for mass produced firearms. The tools and the process itself tho, is very expensive. Because of the precision, accuracy is as good if not better than older styles of rifling. My newer Smiths outshoot my older ones in every case....that is with jacketed bullets. I shoot very little lead. While some folks see more leading with the ECM rifling, just as many do not. I believe that it may be because the ECM barrels are just more finicky as to fit. Could also be because the throats do not match the bore. That said, the difference between S&Ws and Rugers is more of a preference, and to a certain extent, brand loyalty. Used to be Rugers were considerably less to buy new.....that is not the case anymore, altho it is still true on the used market.....from my experience. Like women, some guys like a them with a little meat on their bones and some like 'em more petite. Neither is right or wrong, just preference.
 
I have sold 6 of my 7 modern S&W guns because of leading and because they weren't assigned to CCW with jacketed ammo. I still believe the story is told by the rifling difference between the 625JM and the 625PC, the latter of which I just shot again this afternoon.
 
Love my 686. Lock? What lock?

IMG_2819.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top