Ruger GP 100

R

Russ

New member
How does the Ruger GP 100 .357 compare to S&W revolvers. I have a 20 year old S&W 686 that I love and I am looking for another .357. I am hesitant to buy a Smith due to their treachery so I want to know what you think about the Ruger in terms of:

1. Ovarall guality ( fit & finish)

2. Durability ( I think they are investment cast whereas the Smith's were forged, don't know if it matters.)

3. How do they compare to Taurus?

Where I am, they are also about $100 cheaper than the Smith but that doesn't really bother me to much if it is a POS in comparison. If a POS I just won't get anything until S&W gets out of the pact they made with Clintoon

Any input would be appreciated. Thanks
 
GP100, hands down

.....but then, this is just MHO. I used to have a S&W 686, but didn't like the way it would bind when shooting full house loads. My KGP-141 on OTOH, will take the full house loads all day long. Even though Ruger is cast, it is tough as nails. I don't recall ever hearing someone say they shot their Ruger apart. WeShoot2, another poster on this BB has two GP's. The ammo he makes hasn't had any effect on his guns.
 
1. Ovarall guality ( fit & finish)
Click to expand...

Good overall quality. Main problem IMO is the trigger--Ruger has still yet to consistently produce good DA trigger pulls.

2. Durability ( I think they are investment cast whereas the Smith's were forged, don't know if it matters.)
Click to expand...

Excellent durability. It would take more rounds than the average person can afford to shoot out a GP 100. They are built like a small tank!

3. How do they compare to Taurus?
Click to expand...

IMO, anything S&W or Ruger makes is FAR better than what Taurus puts out.
 
Greeting's Sir,

IMHO, with regard to Ruger firearms in general; they are superb.
Equaled in comparsion with Smith & Wesson in fit and finish; but
the nod goes exclusively to Ruger, in terms of durability.:D It's
not a widely known fact, but all Ruger firearms are "proof
tested" with loads that exceed 30% of the maximum loads, for
each weapon. I would strongly recommend their GP-100 series;
as opposed to any of the Taurus revolver's, even the
"new and improved" version of the Tauri line. My favorite, the
KGP-141 will rival S&W's 686 rather well; although I own the
latter. Last but certainly not least, Ruger's service department
gets a 5-star rating *****; as they go above and beyond the
call of duty.:D :cool: :)

I previously owned 2X= Ruger Security-Six'es in .357 magnum,
and one Ruger KMK-512 MK-II, bull barrel .22LR. All of these
were excellent, quality firearms. I would not hestiate to buy
or recommend any of the Ruger firearm's.:) :D

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, Life Member N.R.A.
 
Years ago I heard of two occasions where I lived then of Police Officers experiencing binding problems with K frame stainless Smiths (don't recall the exact model). They didn't completely lock up - but an EXTREAM amout of trigger pull was required to make them shoot. Not good - and shortly thereafter they switched to Glocks.

At the same time I had a blue steel Ruger Speed Six (basically the same as the Security Six and Service Six models). Never ever a problem. The more I shot it the smoother it got.

The new model GP series that replaced them are actually a bit heavier and stronger. In fact, I heard that some ammo manufacturers use them as ammo test beds (as was the case with the Security Six models). I've never heard or read anywhere about problems with the GP's. In my opinion, they are overall stronger guns than the comprarable sized Smiths.

I've heard conflicting stories about Taurus. Some people have found them to be nicely fitted and finished. Others have experienced significant problems.

So with all that said, my choice for a medium frame .357 revolver would be the Ruger GP series - over any others.
 
RUGER buries Smith in "virtually" every way. A Ruger trigger CAN be nearly as good as a tuned smith. But, the Smith is generally a little better. Of course, the Ruger trigger design is probably a little sturdier and it is modular as well - a plus for cleaning and repair. Its a little bit of a trade off, but I would take the Ruger in a heartbeat. Oh, you will also notice the cylinder notches in the Ruger are between the chambers not over them as in the Smith, thus making the Ruger cylinder considerably stronger.
 
Buy the Ruger! I bought a KGP161 (stainless 6" ) it was my first handgun I had since I turned in my Trooper special(model28?) back in the 80's , the gun is heavy thus controlling recoil , put together nicely , easy to work on (trigger work and springs, hogue grips,) plus alot of companies offer options for it and it was about 1/2 the price (357.00 in 99) !,I am in the process of getting a matching 4" for the collection , I recently bought A GP-161 used for 300. it was in new shape , previous owner thought it was too big. I think smith is a little over rated , wait a while for the new owners to settle in or try to find an older used model .the taurus models IMO don't have enough meat around the cylinders .
 
686

The 1st model 686 had problems with binding when fired with mag loads.
A general statement to police depts was issued to have them returned for modification which I believe resulted in the 686-1.
I like the smith dbl action trigger and prefer the rd butt configuration. The ruger is cetainly stronger and in single action fire in my experience more accurate.
 
Blued vs. Stainless GP-100's - any reason not to go with stainless other than if you like the way blued guns look. Have heard that carbon steel makes for smoother actions in semi's not sure about revolvers. What about how smooth the barrel is? I actually like the way blued guns look if they are nicely done.
 
SOMEONE CALL MY NAME?

Own two 4" stainless GP's; both have taken serious (I mean seriously serious) ammo, both shoot with uncanny accuracy using correct (not namby-pamby) loads, both satisfy me greatly.

Owned different brands before, could have bought any.

Wife liked the first one so much (IPSC, you know) had to buy another.

Mine wear Pachmayr Decelerators and Millett orange-ramp front sight blades.
Tried lighter springs, but got erratic operation; stick with stock. Spend some time dry-firing to tune trigger.

Now my 357 Redhawk does most extreme-ammo development, but the GP's get used for all final testing.
 

Attachments

  • brendablaster2.jpg
    brendablaster2.jpg
    40.7 KB · Views: 206
I don't think you will go wrong with either the blued or stainless GP-100. I have a stainless 6 inch and it has yet to fail. Accurate with anything from wadcutter target loads to maximum Magnum loads. I just wish Ruger made them with 8 inch barrels.
 
Russ-
I've owned both the Ruger GP-100 and a S&W M686, both four-inch barrel models. I have handled many more.
The S&W normally shows better workmanship, but sometimes, that's a trade-off. If Smith can be a little sloppy in fitting the sideplate, Ruger can be a bit sloppy in the line where the trigger group joins the frame. A quick visual check will tell you whether a particular gun is well-fitted, of course. Naturally, you'll also check timing of the gun, overall workmanship, etc.
On the Ruger, be particularly careful to check for fore-and-aft movement in the crane and to ensure that the cylinder locking notches aren't too long for the cylinder bolt. On one of the two GP-100's I owned, the cylinder WOULD ACTUALLY SLIDE FORWARD TOWARD THE BARREL BREECH IF THE MUZZLE OF THE GUN WAS POINTED DOWN! I have never had the displeasure of experiencing that on any other revolver.
Ruger has a longer trigger pull that is heavier, but will smooth up some with use. (All revolvers will smooth as the action parts are cycled in normal use.) The harder trigger pull makes it harder for ME to shoot the Ruger well, but it can be done.
Another topic today addresses the issue of the factory GP-100 grip pulling skin off the shooter's hand during recoil with magnum loads. It did this to me. It was worst after some some shots had been fired, I'd reloaded, and some powder residue was on the grip. I used Pachmayr Grippers with full pleasure after I got fed up with the Ruger grip. Uncle Mike's grips, three pairs tried, did not fit the Ruger frame properly. Yet, I use this brand with perfect satisfaction on Smiths. The Uncle Mike's people told me that Ruger frames vary more, and it's hard to be sure their grips will fit.
Recoil effect MAY be slightly less in the Ruger, and I think that if both brands are shot EXTENSIVELY with full magnum loads over a long time period of time, the Ruger will hold up better. However, I stress that one should check for cylinder endshake with both after a lot of firing, and Rugers OFTEN come with play in the crane, as noted above. That was also true of the old Security-Six series. If you get a good one, don't sell it. But that's true of ANY gun today...
Hand-pick either make and model, and both Ruger and Smith & Wesson will be satisfactory, but if you want refinement, the S&W offers more. The Ruger is probably more enduring without minor repairs over the long haul, but you'll have to shoot a LOT to find out. These two guns probably represent the two most practical general use revolvers on the market, unless concealed carry is a factor. Then, you may want to consider the S&W M66 on the lighter K-frame. It will, however, not endure as long with heavy use of magnum loads as will the other two, heavier, guns. This is particularly true if you want to use the 125-grain bullet loads so famous for stopping power in .357. Heavier bullets cause less wear to the gun, all else being equal. The reasons for this have to do with powder and other ejecta causing wear to the barrel throat and top strap of the gun, and are beyond the scope of your basic question. I have, however, confirmed this with several ammunition manufacturers. At one time, the lighter bullets were also loaded with different powders that were more erosive to the gun, but that isn't much of a factor with the major companies today.
Hope this helps. It has bothered me that other members haven't posted anything about the tendency of Ruger D.A. guns to have sloppy crane fit and for the "tacky" grip to drag and tear the hand.

Sincerely,

Lone Star
 
I have owned the GP100 and 686 at the same time and was able to compare them side by side at the same range on the same day with the same loads on numerous occasions.

The GP100 is great if you don't mind a heavy creepy trigger pull in the single action mode. The single action trigger pull of the GP100 I owned was very poor compared to my 686. Some say that the GP100 can be tuned to be very crisp which is true but the Smith comes that way right out of the box. Plus the cost of tuning the Ruger properly is not cheap. Nearly all the shooters at my local pistol club who target shoot in the league revolver matches shoot Smiths because of the creep free trigger.

As far as accuracy I was always able to fire tight groups with both the 686 and GP100 two handed. Shooting one handed as we do in league shooting - the Ruger's creepy heavy pull was too much to deal with.

I do not hesitate to fire any 357 load listed in any of the reputable loading manuals in my 686. The cylinders of both revolvers are basically the same diameter - I was able to use the same speed loader for both. As far as the notch location on the cylinder of the Smith - never had any problems with cylinder failure on any of my Smiths. If the Smith cylinder is forged I would have more confidence in the strength of it's cylinder.

As far as grip design I always thought it was a GP100 strongpoint. I thought it was very comfortable to shoot. I always liked the GP100 front sight - I can see the serrated ramp better in most conditions that the Smiths red insert. The GP100 rear sight seemed very crude - windage and elevation required 2 different screwdrivers.

The fit and finish on most Rugers I have owned have been below the Smiths I have owned. Most of the stainless Rugers I have owned have had uneven buffing marks especially in the area where the barrel meets the frame.

It is far easier to mount an optical sight on one of the current Smith revolvers - as most models with target sights are pre- drilled and tapped for a scope mount.

I no longer have the GP100 - but I'll never be without my 686!
 
I own both, and my GP-141 hits the range with me more often than the 686.

My single action trigger on the Ruger is super crisp. With the 10lb Wolff gun springs installed it is smooth and light, much better than the Smith, and the gun just feels better in the hand.

I tried the 9lb springs from Wolff and had misfires, work perfectly with the 10...

The Ruger is easy to disassemble and clean, the trigger group comes out without tools and snaps right back into place. I'm afraid to even try and take the sideplate off the Smith...all the talk about bending and the trouble of aligning the parts in the groves..etc..etc..

I also like Rugers cylinder release better than the Smiths.

One other little personal quirk I like about the Ruger is it appears to be balanced on both sides of the firearm. The right side of the Smith (plate side) is big, barren and empty. I'm thinking about having it engraved to take up some of that emptyness..

The Smith's lines are better and it more pleasing to the eye


Bob
 
Thanks to all of you for your input both pro and con. I greatly appreciate it. TFL is a great place!

Thanks,

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