Ruger GP100 vs. S&W 686+ (Sheer Durability)
- Thread starter Ale GOlem
- Start date
Crankgrinder
New member
most information you will read points to the ruger being a stronger, more utilitarian gun, and the smith to be a bit more pricey, finer finished piece but all these folks are right. If the gp's extra strength as its percieved were to come into play then maybe a .357 isnt the right calibre. I went with the gp myself due mostly to the price and simplicity, Plus I love the look. I love the look of both guns, but I like the gps that much more, and I could not bring myself to pay +800$ for one when theres one for 600& flat thatll do the same thing just as well.
Shoot Todd Green's "2,000 Round Challenge" and evaluate each gun at 1,000 and 2,000 rounds.
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?9-2-000-Round-Challenge&highlight=2%2C000+round+challenge
My guess is that both will pass with flying colors and you won't notice enough of a difference between the two to matter.
Don't forget to take photos and post the results on that forum.
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?9-2-000-Round-Challenge&highlight=2%2C000+round+challenge
My guess is that both will pass with flying colors and you won't notice enough of a difference between the two to matter.
Don't forget to take photos and post the results on that forum.
I have owned two 686s and two GP100s. I still own a GP100. I give the durability to the GP100. Jim March explained it well. Front and rear lockup system. Also the trigger group parts are stronger. The trigger will usually be better with the S&W. Both will shoot factory 357 magnums everyday. Like Drail said, both will suffer forcing cone erosion with constant use of 110 to 125 gr high velocity 357s.
Get the one you like and get the best deal.
Good luck,
Howard
Get the one you like and get the best deal.
Good luck,
Howard
I own multiple copies of each and have complete confidence either would survive years of abuse, lack of cleaning you name it. Not that I plan to.
In a new gun the gp gets the nod for the lack of a lock. Overall my 7 shot 686-4 would likely be the last wheel gun I let go out of my hsnds
In a new gun the gp gets the nod for the lack of a lock. Overall my 7 shot 686-4 would likely be the last wheel gun I let go out of my hsnds
silvermane_1
New member
IMHO, go with the GP-100, now i could be wrong but i don't think that Ruger uses MIM parts in the GP-100 series, i know that S&W does use MIM parts in the later models 686 series.
Super Sneaky Steve
New member
The Ruger doesn't have a side plate either, this adds more strength to the GP100.
My comments on this in your other forum thread regarding the Ruger being more durable are based on gunsmith feedback over a number of years.
If you talk to somebody who KNOWS both guns & who's actually handled repairs on both for several years, you'll find the Rugers rarely go out of time, and wear in other key areas is less because the Ruger was designed from the ground up for .357 pressures and heavy use, while the Smith is an ongoing adaptation of a design well over a hundred years old originating in a time when people didn't shoot their guns nearly as much as today.
This is not just limited to the bolt stop notches in the cylinder walls, and/or the sideplate vs no sideplate. It also concerns frame design & strength, crane & other parts dimensions & interactions, and angles elsewhere.
Both are good guns, but aside from "I like the trigger better on this", "I like the balance better on that", and "One's elegant & one's not", I maintain my position that the Ruger is the more durable of the two designs. Not talking aesthetics or how the grips feel in hand, and warrantee support is also irrelevant to the durability question in the initial post.
If you don't shoot either one much, that's not important in deciding which way to go. Most people don't shoot .357s enough for it to make a difference. If you do intend to be shooting it a LOT for a long time, it may be.
And that's not saying the Smith is fragile or that it'll wear out in a few hundred rounds. It's not & it won't.
I have L-Frames & GPs here, and I'd expect either design to hold up to far more than I'd be shooting any of them.
Denis
And, Ruger does now use MIMs in GPs and SPs.
If you talk to somebody who KNOWS both guns & who's actually handled repairs on both for several years, you'll find the Rugers rarely go out of time, and wear in other key areas is less because the Ruger was designed from the ground up for .357 pressures and heavy use, while the Smith is an ongoing adaptation of a design well over a hundred years old originating in a time when people didn't shoot their guns nearly as much as today.
This is not just limited to the bolt stop notches in the cylinder walls, and/or the sideplate vs no sideplate. It also concerns frame design & strength, crane & other parts dimensions & interactions, and angles elsewhere.
Both are good guns, but aside from "I like the trigger better on this", "I like the balance better on that", and "One's elegant & one's not", I maintain my position that the Ruger is the more durable of the two designs. Not talking aesthetics or how the grips feel in hand, and warrantee support is also irrelevant to the durability question in the initial post.
If you don't shoot either one much, that's not important in deciding which way to go. Most people don't shoot .357s enough for it to make a difference. If you do intend to be shooting it a LOT for a long time, it may be.
And that's not saying the Smith is fragile or that it'll wear out in a few hundred rounds. It's not & it won't.
I have L-Frames & GPs here, and I'd expect either design to hold up to far more than I'd be shooting any of them.
Denis
And, Ruger does now use MIMs in GPs and SPs.
Depending in how they feel in my hand this may very well come down to a coin toss. I guess I could save up and just buy one of each, maybe I can even pseudo-justify it in my head if they have different barrel lengths. The 6" S&W is gorgeous but for some reason anything longer than 4.2" on the Ruger looks silly to me.
Last edited:
rugersp101
New member
Jim March and DPris have the best breakdown of the GP's merits on this thread...... period. The old Forged S&W versus Investment Cast Ruger argument has long been debunked, both in the lab and in the real world. Ask a college educated metallurgist how advanced investment casting really is if you want an insight.
Investment cast structural pieces have proven themselves in outer space flight under extreme forces that make the ignition pressure of ANY firearm cartridge seem like a luke warm fart.
That being said, I like and respect both makers designs. Few can destroy either unless you have the time and money to play all day, every day shooting them non-stop with rocket launching loads
And your joints, would most likely go before that.
Investment cast structural pieces have proven themselves in outer space flight under extreme forces that make the ignition pressure of ANY firearm cartridge seem like a luke warm fart.
That being said, I like and respect both makers designs. Few can destroy either unless you have the time and money to play all day, every day shooting them non-stop with rocket launching loads
And your joints, would most likely go before that.
Last edited:
Actually, someone did do a high round count showdown of these two guns pitted against each other, though the 686 was not the + model of 7-shot, it was the standard 6-shot.
This was in a gun magazine, either Guns & Ammo or Shooting Times, and I think it was G&A. Would have been early to mid 1990's. I have it here somewhere.
I believe the round count was 6,000 rounds through each. At the end, they came up with no conclusion other than what most have said here-- if there is a difference and one IS stronger or better, it's hard to tell.
I really like DPris's post and his rationale. (actually, I don't recall any post he's ever penned in the revolver forum that I didn't enjoy...) His argument makes awfully good sense to me. And the first handgun I ever bought with my own money (paper route money!) was a new 686 dash 3 that I still love dearly.
I really like a GP-100 though, no doubt. Just bought one a couple weeks ago and going to stretch it's legs this weekend for the first time. It's not a .357 Magnum, though!
This was in a gun magazine, either Guns & Ammo or Shooting Times, and I think it was G&A. Would have been early to mid 1990's. I have it here somewhere.
I believe the round count was 6,000 rounds through each. At the end, they came up with no conclusion other than what most have said here-- if there is a difference and one IS stronger or better, it's hard to tell.
I really like DPris's post and his rationale. (actually, I don't recall any post he's ever penned in the revolver forum that I didn't enjoy...) His argument makes awfully good sense to me. And the first handgun I ever bought with my own money (paper route money!) was a new 686 dash 3 that I still love dearly.
I really like a GP-100 though, no doubt. Just bought one a couple weeks ago and going to stretch it's legs this weekend for the first time. It's not a .357 Magnum, though!
It is amazing to me how many people think that a Ruger cannot be "worn out". Nothing could be further from the truth. It doesn't take all that long either if you use hot enough loads. The Ruger is a great design but it is made from steel and hot gases will eat it away. I still have a GP that I ruined in one summer shooting 125 gr. handloads in it like an idiot. The forcing cone is cut and grooved and extremely brittle. They will not last forever.
If I were in the market I would stay with a 6 shot gun myself.
I have a 4" 686-1 as well as a 4" 686-5. I also have a pair of 480 Super RedHawk Rugers, and my brother has had 2 GP100's so far. We both have LCR-22's. We both own both S&W and Ruger Revolvers.
To start off with as has been said above You will never wear either one out shooting it.
The 6000 round ammo test comparison. My bet would be that after the test both revolvers were smoother operating than when new. Just broke in well.
One having a better action than the other. My brothers current GP100 is the 3" Willy Clapp version. We took it by to see Ron Power a while back to get the chambers chamfered a little. Ron being an old acquaintence of mine did a little more to it while we were their. I have 4 S&W revolvers that Ron has tuned on. The GP100 has as nice an action now as any of my Smith & Wessons. I have read numerous times where you cannot get as nice a trigger on a Ruger. They have not had the right person tune on it.
Both are pretty much equally strong and durable.
They both use the same Speed Loaders in 6 shot versions. Safariland Comp II's, and Comp III's will work in both.
Good holsters are made for both.
Both can be tuned to perfection.
The Ruger has a Quick Change front sight. Handy if you would like to try a Fiber Optic front sight. PLUS
Houge "Tamer" Grips made for the 454 & 480 Super RedHawk Alaskan fit the GP100 like a glove. They both take the same grip. The Tamer grip would be my choice for Magnum Loads in a GP100. PLUS
The Ruger is easier to disassemble for a complete cleaning for the average owner. PLUS
My brother is Left Handed. He can work the GP100 Cylinder Release easier than the Smith & Wesson doing speed reloads in pistol matches. Right hand operation, they both work fine.
For the Short barrel concealed carry versions of both the 686 has a much better selection of concealed carry grips. PLUS
The 686 has a slightly better adjustable rear sight. Not enough better for a Plus though
I personally like my 686's a little better. I am starting to replace my Goodyears with nice wood grips one revolver at a time. I think the S&W is just a nicer looking revolver. It is also more expensive.
As far as Bang for your Bucks. I have seen 2 Blued GP100's with 6" barrels for $400 lately in new condition. That is a buy. I put $550 in my last used 4" 686-5 and consider that to be a very good buy.
Bottom Line:
You can live with either one.
The GP100 is a better buy.
The GP100 has a Quick Change Front Sight.
The 686 has a much better selection of Nice Grips.
The Hogue "Tamer" Grip can be used on the GP100 for magnum loads.
The GP100 is easier to break down for internal Cleaning and Lubrication for the average owner.
The 686 will normally have a little better trigger out of the box.
Both are beafed up Police Duty Guns redesigned to handle a steady diet of 357 Magnum ammo.
The 686 Adjustable Sights are just a little better.
If you take care of either revolver you can hand them down to your kids and grandkids.
Bob
I have a 4" 686-1 as well as a 4" 686-5. I also have a pair of 480 Super RedHawk Rugers, and my brother has had 2 GP100's so far. We both have LCR-22's. We both own both S&W and Ruger Revolvers.
To start off with as has been said above You will never wear either one out shooting it.
The 6000 round ammo test comparison. My bet would be that after the test both revolvers were smoother operating than when new. Just broke in well.
One having a better action than the other. My brothers current GP100 is the 3" Willy Clapp version. We took it by to see Ron Power a while back to get the chambers chamfered a little. Ron being an old acquaintence of mine did a little more to it while we were their. I have 4 S&W revolvers that Ron has tuned on. The GP100 has as nice an action now as any of my Smith & Wessons. I have read numerous times where you cannot get as nice a trigger on a Ruger. They have not had the right person tune on it.
Both are pretty much equally strong and durable.
They both use the same Speed Loaders in 6 shot versions. Safariland Comp II's, and Comp III's will work in both.
Good holsters are made for both.
Both can be tuned to perfection.
The Ruger has a Quick Change front sight. Handy if you would like to try a Fiber Optic front sight. PLUS
Houge "Tamer" Grips made for the 454 & 480 Super RedHawk Alaskan fit the GP100 like a glove. They both take the same grip. The Tamer grip would be my choice for Magnum Loads in a GP100. PLUS
The Ruger is easier to disassemble for a complete cleaning for the average owner. PLUS
My brother is Left Handed. He can work the GP100 Cylinder Release easier than the Smith & Wesson doing speed reloads in pistol matches. Right hand operation, they both work fine.
For the Short barrel concealed carry versions of both the 686 has a much better selection of concealed carry grips. PLUS
The 686 has a slightly better adjustable rear sight. Not enough better for a Plus though
I personally like my 686's a little better. I am starting to replace my Goodyears with nice wood grips one revolver at a time. I think the S&W is just a nicer looking revolver. It is also more expensive.
As far as Bang for your Bucks. I have seen 2 Blued GP100's with 6" barrels for $400 lately in new condition. That is a buy. I put $550 in my last used 4" 686-5 and consider that to be a very good buy.
Bottom Line:
You can live with either one.
The GP100 is a better buy.
The GP100 has a Quick Change Front Sight.
The 686 has a much better selection of Nice Grips.
The Hogue "Tamer" Grip can be used on the GP100 for magnum loads.
The GP100 is easier to break down for internal Cleaning and Lubrication for the average owner.
The 686 will normally have a little better trigger out of the box.
Both are beafed up Police Duty Guns redesigned to handle a steady diet of 357 Magnum ammo.
The 686 Adjustable Sights are just a little better.
If you take care of either revolver you can hand them down to your kids and grandkids.
Bob
Drail,
I don't recall saying anywhere that a Ruger can't be worn out.
Any gun can be worn out, it just takes more to reach that point with a Ruger GP.
125s will tear up any .357, sooner or later. In most cases, sooner.
When I give my opinion of the Ruger being more durable, that's across the board and waaaayyyyy down the road.
This has nothing to do with comparing weights, grip options, sight options, trigger pulls, subjective balance feels, and so on.
The cylinder is stronger, which helps guard against overloads.
The bearing & engagement of the cylinder, "crane", front lockup, and so on are designed to handle repeated pounding of hot loads better than the 686.
The squared topstrap on adjustable sight models is slightly beefier, resisting frame stretch slightly better.
The barrel/frame join is stronger than the Smith 686.
The hand & ratchet teeth will typically wear better and longer, which is one of the reasons Rugers go out of time far less often than Smiths.
And so on.
Again- NEITHER WILL WEAR OUT QUICKLY, AND IT'D TAKE A LOT OF SHOOTING TO REACH THE POINT WHERE THE SUPERIOR STRENGTH & DURABILITY OF THE RUGER WOULD BECOME AN ISSUE.
The Smith is not an "inferior" gun in the general sense of the word.
I have a 586 heavily customized that I'd not hesitate to bet my life on.
It was very much worth spending the money for.
They're great guns, just not built from the ground up for the .357 Mag pressures & recoil impulses.
The GP was.
If sheer longevity is the deciding factor, I'd vote for the Ruger.
If it isn't & you don't plan to shoot 200 full-bore .357 rounds a week year in & year out, then go with the Smith if you LIKE the 686 features.
Most people won't shoot either model enough to notice the difference in longevity between the two.
Everybody has their own selection criteria.
While I prefer the Smith for certain reasons, most of which are largely emotional & "feel", when I take a .357 out in the dirt loaded with 180s for everything from coyote through wolves to small bear, it's strictly a no-emotion sheerly-pragmatic GP.
I have carried both brands on duty. I would not feel undergunned or vulnerable with either gun for duty or personal carry applications.
I bought a 586 the first year it was introduced.
I currently own more Smiths than Rugers.
I'm not a strict brand loyalist, and I use & choose models from both companies for individual applications, where a Ruger might be my "best" choice here, and a Smith might be my "best" choice there.
Stay away from the 125s, or at least keep their use down to a minimum, in either gun.
Denis
I don't recall saying anywhere that a Ruger can't be worn out.
Any gun can be worn out, it just takes more to reach that point with a Ruger GP.
125s will tear up any .357, sooner or later. In most cases, sooner.
When I give my opinion of the Ruger being more durable, that's across the board and waaaayyyyy down the road.
This has nothing to do with comparing weights, grip options, sight options, trigger pulls, subjective balance feels, and so on.
The cylinder is stronger, which helps guard against overloads.
The bearing & engagement of the cylinder, "crane", front lockup, and so on are designed to handle repeated pounding of hot loads better than the 686.
The squared topstrap on adjustable sight models is slightly beefier, resisting frame stretch slightly better.
The barrel/frame join is stronger than the Smith 686.
The hand & ratchet teeth will typically wear better and longer, which is one of the reasons Rugers go out of time far less often than Smiths.
And so on.
Again- NEITHER WILL WEAR OUT QUICKLY, AND IT'D TAKE A LOT OF SHOOTING TO REACH THE POINT WHERE THE SUPERIOR STRENGTH & DURABILITY OF THE RUGER WOULD BECOME AN ISSUE.
The Smith is not an "inferior" gun in the general sense of the word.
I have a 586 heavily customized that I'd not hesitate to bet my life on.
It was very much worth spending the money for.
They're great guns, just not built from the ground up for the .357 Mag pressures & recoil impulses.
The GP was.
If sheer longevity is the deciding factor, I'd vote for the Ruger.
If it isn't & you don't plan to shoot 200 full-bore .357 rounds a week year in & year out, then go with the Smith if you LIKE the 686 features.
Most people won't shoot either model enough to notice the difference in longevity between the two.
Everybody has their own selection criteria.
While I prefer the Smith for certain reasons, most of which are largely emotional & "feel", when I take a .357 out in the dirt loaded with 180s for everything from coyote through wolves to small bear, it's strictly a no-emotion sheerly-pragmatic GP.
I have carried both brands on duty. I would not feel undergunned or vulnerable with either gun for duty or personal carry applications.
I bought a 586 the first year it was introduced.
I currently own more Smiths than Rugers.
I'm not a strict brand loyalist, and I use & choose models from both companies for individual applications, where a Ruger might be my "best" choice here, and a Smith might be my "best" choice there.
Stay away from the 125s, or at least keep their use down to a minimum, in either gun.
Denis
Last edited: