I have a GP100 and its has malfunctioned a couple of times on me. Once I had to ship it back to the factory for the cylinder not turning, and now the trigger wont always return to its position after firing. My question: should I get a trigger lob ($75) or should I get a used 686plus? Will I be sacrificing strength? I know the tigger pull will be nicer. Thanks!TCW
GP100 vs SW686 Plus strength?
- Thread starter TCW
- Start date
Ruger has a great customer service dept. and should fix the trigger for $0.00.
As far as the Smith goes, you might get a smoother trigger pull, but you will be sacrificing a wee bit in the strength area. The ruger's design is monolithic in a sense. If you notice the smith has a side plate that screwed onto the frame, ruger has no such design. Smith did design teh 686/586 series to handle the riggers of shooting magnums on a consistent basis. As far as I know, Smith make a great revolver, Ruger just makes a tougher one. Trigger pulls can be smoothed and lightened, but the gun cannot be made stronger as easy.
Stick with the ruger.
------------------
"By His stripes we are healed..."
PeterGunn
As far as the Smith goes, you might get a smoother trigger pull, but you will be sacrificing a wee bit in the strength area. The ruger's design is monolithic in a sense. If you notice the smith has a side plate that screwed onto the frame, ruger has no such design. Smith did design teh 686/586 series to handle the riggers of shooting magnums on a consistent basis. As far as I know, Smith make a great revolver, Ruger just makes a tougher one. Trigger pulls can be smoothed and lightened, but the gun cannot be made stronger as easy.
Stick with the ruger.
------------------
"By His stripes we are healed..."
PeterGunn
Gunslinger
Moderator
I don't mean to be an ass......but is the gun clean? 
I know that sounds insulting, which is not how it is intended, but it very seldom one hears of such problems with the Ruger. 
I'm a Smith & Wesson man myself (used, thank you very much
) but no one will ever hear me degrade Rugers inherient strength and dependablity.
------------------
Gunslinger
TFL End of Summer Meet, August 12th & 13th, 2000
[This message has been edited by Gunslinger (edited May 19, 2000).]
I know that sounds insulting, which is not how it is intended, but it very seldom one hears of such problems with the Ruger. I'm a Smith & Wesson man myself (used, thank you very much
) but no one will ever hear me degrade Rugers inherient strength and dependablity.------------------
Gunslinger
TFL End of Summer Meet, August 12th & 13th, 2000
[This message has been edited by Gunslinger (edited May 19, 2000).]
The endless "Ruger GP-100 is marginally stronger versus the S&W 686 has a marginally smoother trigger pull" debate continues. I suspect both revolvers are sufficiently strong, particularly if most of the rounds (practice, target shooting, plinking, etc.) are .38 Special, with only occasional .357 magnum use.
One way to resolve this issue is to buy (used, not new) a Smith "N" frame 627, which was the frame originally designed for extensive .357 magnum use. It's a large sidearm, but a VERY fine one.
[This message has been edited by RWK (edited May 19, 2000).]
One way to resolve this issue is to buy (used, not new) a Smith "N" frame 627, which was the frame originally designed for extensive .357 magnum use. It's a large sidearm, but a VERY fine one.
[This message has been edited by RWK (edited May 19, 2000).]
I'm surprised to hear that about your GP100. Mine has been completely reliable for the three years that I've owned it--and the guy I bought it from had over a thousand rounds through it when I got it from him.
I've shot the 686 and the GP100 (both 4" barrels) side by side for an hour using a variety of ammos. What I found was that you are correct that the double action trigger of the 686 was quite a bit smoother than the Ruger; however, to me the Ruger's single action trigger broke more crisply. Since I usually shoot single anyway, I bought the Ruger.
Neither gun had a particular edge in accuracy during my test run. The Ruger's felt recoil was substantially less than the 686 with .357 rounds and with .38, neither gun bounced.
Like I said, I bought the Ruger and saved a hundred bucks (all of which got spent on ammo...)
------------------
Take the long way home...
I've shot the 686 and the GP100 (both 4" barrels) side by side for an hour using a variety of ammos. What I found was that you are correct that the double action trigger of the 686 was quite a bit smoother than the Ruger; however, to me the Ruger's single action trigger broke more crisply. Since I usually shoot single anyway, I bought the Ruger.
Neither gun had a particular edge in accuracy during my test run. The Ruger's felt recoil was substantially less than the 686 with .357 rounds and with .38, neither gun bounced.
Like I said, I bought the Ruger and saved a hundred bucks (all of which got spent on ammo...)
------------------
Take the long way home...
RWK,
The Ruger GP-100 design is sufficiently strong for sustained magnum use, as is the SP-101 for that matter. I would even venture to guess the GP-100 is a stonger design than the magical "N" frame S&W.
Bigger ain't always better (or stronger)!!!
Stick with Ruger, my boy they WILL NOT be broken!!!
------------------
"By His stripes we are healed..."
PeterGunn
The Ruger GP-100 design is sufficiently strong for sustained magnum use, as is the SP-101 for that matter. I would even venture to guess the GP-100 is a stonger design than the magical "N" frame S&W.
Bigger ain't always better (or stronger)!!!
Stick with Ruger, my boy they WILL NOT be broken!!!
------------------
"By His stripes we are healed..."
PeterGunn
PeterGun,
Not to start a "flame war" over what is really inconsequential -- the Ruger GP-100 and the S&W "N frame are both very strong revolvers -- but the "N" frame's stainless steel machined FORGINGS (not castings) appear have greater cross-section.
Admittedly, Smith's multi-component, screw attached design is theoretically not as strong as Ruger's. However, the "N" frame has certainly passed the most stressing strength test -- the test of time for 50+ years. Have you ever heard of an "N" frame cracking under specified use?
Not to start a "flame war" over what is really inconsequential -- the Ruger GP-100 and the S&W "N frame are both very strong revolvers -- but the "N" frame's stainless steel machined FORGINGS (not castings) appear have greater cross-section.
Admittedly, Smith's multi-component, screw attached design is theoretically not as strong as Ruger's. However, the "N" frame has certainly passed the most stressing strength test -- the test of time for 50+ years. Have you ever heard of an "N" frame cracking under specified use?
thequickad
New member
I prefer my KGP100 4" than my 686 Powerport 6". Seems the 686 has more recoil. Plus the Ruger has better factory grips, a more sensible cylinder latch and better accuracy. About the only thing I heard the SW is better is the ability to have the trigger tuned. Not a big deal for me. 
Did you ever change srpings in this gun. I did and had a little problem with the trigger return, not a malfuntion but it would catch.
ALos , with 200 rds you could have gotton enough power there to jam it up. your barrel cylinder gap could be small. It did happen to me on one occasion.
you can polish your own trigger with a dremmel tool.
Id go for the trigger job and soem diferent springs. youll have the best of both worlds.
you can get the trigger job for around 65.00
ALos , with 200 rds you could have gotton enough power there to jam it up. your barrel cylinder gap could be small. It did happen to me on one occasion.
you can polish your own trigger with a dremmel tool.
Id go for the trigger job and soem diferent springs. youll have the best of both worlds.
you can get the trigger job for around 65.00
Will Beararms
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TCW:
It should be cleaned...I've only shot about 200 rounds through it, and it's never seen any dirt.TCW[/quote]
TCW:
Clean that Puppy asap------thoroughly and then let it set for a week and hit it again. Then, get some of that stuff advertised in Dillon's Blue Press that will keep fouling from building up on the cylinder.
Clean it after every range trip with Breakfree CLP and follow up with Breakfree LP for a protective coating.
------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
It should be cleaned...I've only shot about 200 rounds through it, and it's never seen any dirt.TCW[/quote]
TCW:
Clean that Puppy asap------thoroughly and then let it set for a week and hit it again. Then, get some of that stuff advertised in Dillon's Blue Press that will keep fouling from building up on the cylinder.
Clean it after every range trip with Breakfree CLP and follow up with Breakfree LP for a protective coating.
------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
BrokenArrow
New member
Waaaay back in the 70s, the feds T&Ed Colt, S&W, and Ruger (Security/Service six) med frame revovlers w a 10K test w full power magnum ammo. The Rugers were the only guns to finish. S&W countered with the L frame, and Colt the King Cobra. Ruger trumped em again with the GP100.
A casting can be stronger than a forging. The cast frame BHPs now are stronger than many of the older forged frames for example.
The Ruger is stronger, but very few are gonna notice any real world difference. The S&W is smoother, but it doesn't take a lot to make the Ruger very nice too.
Get the one you like best, is cheaper, or flip a coin?
------------------
>>>>---->
A casting can be stronger than a forging. The cast frame BHPs now are stronger than many of the older forged frames for example.
The Ruger is stronger, but very few are gonna notice any real world difference. The S&W is smoother, but it doesn't take a lot to make the Ruger very nice too.
Get the one you like best, is cheaper, or flip a coin?
------------------
>>>>---->