Ruger GP100 vs. S&W 686+ (Sheer Durability)
- Thread starter Ale GOlem
- Start date
Handloading is a tricky beast.
A GOOD load will keep high levels of pressure up for a longer period of time while still not exceeding max. This won't tear the gun up. A BAD load on the other hand will do a short sharp pressure spike.
Put another way: you can two loads that drive the same bullet at the same speed with one exceeding max pressure and the other not. Guess which one is tearing the gun up more?
You can also have flame-cutting issues going the other way though! Try and keep the burn going too long and you use a ton of slow-burn powder that isn't just pushing the bullet, it's blowtorching the innards - esp. the back of the barrel in a wheelgun.
Trying to drive light bullets fast with slow-burn powder is a recipe for this latter class of problem. Too many people tried driving 125gr slugs out of the 357Maximum at warp speed and Ruger ended up recalling the entire caliber. But with the bullet weight upped to 158gr to 200gr they ran fine even with balls-out loads. And that was basically a SuperBlackhawk frame (stretched)...much, much stronger than a GP100 or 686.
A GOOD load will keep high levels of pressure up for a longer period of time while still not exceeding max. This won't tear the gun up. A BAD load on the other hand will do a short sharp pressure spike.
Put another way: you can two loads that drive the same bullet at the same speed with one exceeding max pressure and the other not. Guess which one is tearing the gun up more?
You can also have flame-cutting issues going the other way though! Try and keep the burn going too long and you use a ton of slow-burn powder that isn't just pushing the bullet, it's blowtorching the innards - esp. the back of the barrel in a wheelgun.
Trying to drive light bullets fast with slow-burn powder is a recipe for this latter class of problem. Too many people tried driving 125gr slugs out of the 357Maximum at warp speed and Ruger ended up recalling the entire caliber. But with the bullet weight upped to 158gr to 200gr they ran fine even with balls-out loads. And that was basically a SuperBlackhawk frame (stretched)...much, much stronger than a GP100 or 686.
Trockstroh
New member
I would go with the GP100, they are tanks and shoot dead on, however I think you can't go wrong either way.
schusswaffeausbilder
Inactive
GP100 v S&W 686 Endurance Testing
In response to laytonj1's post: "Since no one has taken numerous samples of both and fired 10's of thousands of rounds thru them under controlled conditions to test for a durability advantage, any answer you get will be an opinion."
In my agency (a major federal law enforcement agency) we conducted endurance testing on both of these revolvers. This was done during bid evaluation processes for subsequent award for agency issue sidearm. A part of the endurance test included 10,000 rounds of 158gr .357 Magnum with careful round count tracking and malfunction/failure documentation against the contract standards. I was blessed with the opportunity to prepare two of these types of contracts and lead the T&E. Ruger and S&W submitted multiple samples of each of these models for the tests.
Simply, the results consistently and overwhelmingly favored the Ruger. At that time Steve Vogel was VP at the Prescott Plant and we discussed the reasoning. (Steve passed away far too young; outlived by his father-in-law, Bill Ruger) According to Steve, and borne out by many experienced firearms instructors of the day, the Ruger metallurgical formula and investment casting processes created a stronger stainless steel than either S&W and Colt (Colt was not part of our testing). This claim was also borne out by our Armorers, who worked extensively on both S&W and Ruger revolvers. Consistently, across the federal law enforcement agencies of the day, carrying revolvers, the Rugers held up better than S&Ws. It's important also remember that the S&W L Frame came into being in response to failures of the K Frame to handle steady diet of high pressure .357 Magnum (high when compared with the venerable .38 Special).
OBTW, both S&W and Ruger samples in both sets of endurance tests held up far better than the instructors and some volunteered students who had to fire the 10,000 rounds through each sample!
So, the Ruger GP100 won the overall contract and the field agents revolted. Both the GP100 and the L Frame are (were) too large for comfortable, concealed carry on a daily basis. Ruger created the GP100 to compete with the S&W L Frame and to carry Bill Ruger's vision of modular-ization and modernization of the firearms manufacturing processes to a new level. The GP100 family replaced the Security Six/Speed Six family - which was also proven far more durable than either the S&W K or L Frames. The GP100 was another one of those engineering solutions to a non-existent problem.
For target practice, home defense, field carry, hunting, and endurance testing, the GP100 is an excellent choice. Comfortable, concealed carry of either the GP100 or the S&W L Frame family (including 686) is best left to those of quite large builds wearing a heavy belt. For that application, in a wheelgun, Ruger's SP101 family is a more practical option; same metallurgical and investment casting durability in a smaller package with, regrettably, one fewer cartridge in the cylinder.
I hope this contributes to the discussion in answering some of the questions on endurance comparisons. Stay safe.
In response to laytonj1's post: "Since no one has taken numerous samples of both and fired 10's of thousands of rounds thru them under controlled conditions to test for a durability advantage, any answer you get will be an opinion."
In my agency (a major federal law enforcement agency) we conducted endurance testing on both of these revolvers. This was done during bid evaluation processes for subsequent award for agency issue sidearm. A part of the endurance test included 10,000 rounds of 158gr .357 Magnum with careful round count tracking and malfunction/failure documentation against the contract standards. I was blessed with the opportunity to prepare two of these types of contracts and lead the T&E. Ruger and S&W submitted multiple samples of each of these models for the tests.
Simply, the results consistently and overwhelmingly favored the Ruger. At that time Steve Vogel was VP at the Prescott Plant and we discussed the reasoning. (Steve passed away far too young; outlived by his father-in-law, Bill Ruger) According to Steve, and borne out by many experienced firearms instructors of the day, the Ruger metallurgical formula and investment casting processes created a stronger stainless steel than either S&W and Colt (Colt was not part of our testing). This claim was also borne out by our Armorers, who worked extensively on both S&W and Ruger revolvers. Consistently, across the federal law enforcement agencies of the day, carrying revolvers, the Rugers held up better than S&Ws. It's important also remember that the S&W L Frame came into being in response to failures of the K Frame to handle steady diet of high pressure .357 Magnum (high when compared with the venerable .38 Special).
OBTW, both S&W and Ruger samples in both sets of endurance tests held up far better than the instructors and some volunteered students who had to fire the 10,000 rounds through each sample!
So, the Ruger GP100 won the overall contract and the field agents revolted. Both the GP100 and the L Frame are (were) too large for comfortable, concealed carry on a daily basis. Ruger created the GP100 to compete with the S&W L Frame and to carry Bill Ruger's vision of modular-ization and modernization of the firearms manufacturing processes to a new level. The GP100 family replaced the Security Six/Speed Six family - which was also proven far more durable than either the S&W K or L Frames. The GP100 was another one of those engineering solutions to a non-existent problem.
For target practice, home defense, field carry, hunting, and endurance testing, the GP100 is an excellent choice. Comfortable, concealed carry of either the GP100 or the S&W L Frame family (including 686) is best left to those of quite large builds wearing a heavy belt. For that application, in a wheelgun, Ruger's SP101 family is a more practical option; same metallurgical and investment casting durability in a smaller package with, regrettably, one fewer cartridge in the cylinder.
I hope this contributes to the discussion in answering some of the questions on endurance comparisons. Stay safe.
Last edited:
youngunz4life
New member
thx for the last post(and your first one). I know even some agencies are stubborn and prefer ruger semis hands down, they won't let em go.
i Love my gp100 and have never met anyone that saw or held my firearm that didnt fall instantly in 'love'
i Love my gp100 and have never met anyone that saw or held my firearm that didnt fall instantly in 'love'
I like both revolvers a lot and, as many have opined, you won't go wrong with either choice. Which one is more durable in the long run should matter the least when deciding on your purchase. Personally, the smoother trigger, the more refined adjustable rear sight, the seventh round option and, subjectively, the general handling characteristics and more eye-pleasing aesthetics led me to pick the Model 686 Plus.
However, as noted by Jim March and others, if I planned on carrying the revolver in conditions that made a field-strip regularly advisable, I'd probably go with the Model GP 100 due to its relatively easy tear-down.
However, as noted by Jim March and others, if I planned on carrying the revolver in conditions that made a field-strip regularly advisable, I'd probably go with the Model GP 100 due to its relatively easy tear-down.