S&W 686 Plus vs Ruger GP100

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well don't forget that the Ruger was tested against atomic weaponry and survived, completely intact, so if you want a revolver which can withstand nuclear explosion and subsequent fallout, don't get a paper mache S&W


:p
 
I didn’t know that bring up the fact that I didn’t care for the newer lock was a restricted subject here at TFL sorry that I stepped over the imaginary line of some members.
Click to expand...
With a smiley in here, you'd come off a bit less obnoxious, but I suppose that wouldn't deliver your message as it was intended. FWIW, -many- of us all feel the same way about ILS-equipped revolvers and no, the conversation isn't restricted. It just seems to muck up and take over a lot of otherwise productive threads. But I'm not the playground lady, so please, continue to throw in snark to the best of your ability. :p

and it's my opinion that the da trigger pulls on each are the same, everything else being equal in terms of usage, wear, year of build, etc.
Click to expand...
I hear ya and also agree that each person's experience is his own, but it does occur to me that no matter how close two revolvers can be in all the other ways...one of them is still pushing the cylinder a smidge more and the other a smidge less and it seems like simple physics is going to stick it's head in to the trigger pull. There's going to be resistance in the lever when you add the work of cylinder turning to it -- and likewise, that work ends/stops when the cylinder stops turning. I suppose the hope is that the END of the work is at the same point and it's only the start of the work that is perceptible in the lever.

This is one of those times where no matter how hard any of us try, we can't convert to text on a screen precisely what we want. I want to put this 686+ that belongs to my buddy in some hands. If I owned it... I have no doubt that I'd be on the phone to S&W.
 
maybe I don't shoot enough. Maybe I'm not skilled enough. I just can't feel a significant difference in the triggers of the Ruger DA revolvers vs S&W DA revolvers.

I had a 6" GP100 and a 6.5" S&W Model 629-4. Both felt equally good to me, honestly. I did sell both, and go a 4" GP100 as I realized I'd prefer to carry it year around camping and stuff. I then sold my 629 to get a SuperRedHawk 7.5" barrel. Again, the trigger felt just as good to me on the SRH as on the 629. I am equally [in]accurate with either.

Since I can't feel a noticeable difference in the triggers, I went with the ones I am less concerned about shooting loose with full-house loads.

I am with the poster who likes their revolvers to be 6 guns.

All three of my centerfire revolvers are 6 guns: no 5s, 7s or 8s. However, my .22lr is an 8-shot SP101.


BTW, I am NOT that skilled. I shot both a Python and an Anaconda, and couldn't feel what all the fuss was about. They were no more accurate in my hands [full-cylinder fired from each] than my GP100 or SRH. Nice, but didn't feel 'better': just different.

I know: heresy!
 
Originally posted by dgludwig:

I've shot thousands of rounds through various Smith revolvers over the years (J,K,L and N frames) and many through both the six and seven round L frames and have never discerned any significant differences in terms of da trigger pulls between the two versions (other than what you might expect in terms of differences resulting from manufacturing tolerances and degree of usage between any two revolvers of like configuration) In fact, a friend's Model 686 Plus has one of the best unmodified da trigger pulls that I have ever tried on any Smith revolver. I don't dispute the fact that some people say they have and nobody has to "accept my argument" to the contrary. I'm only reporting my personal experience with the two revolvers in question (686vs 686 Plus) and it's my opinion that the da trigger pulls on each are the same, everything else being equal in terms of usage, wear, year of build, etc.
As others have noted, I don't think you can go wrong with either the Ruger or the Smith. Both are very nice revolvers.
Click to expand...


Pretty much what I tried to say in my first post, but done much more effectively.:o

As I said before, most of my DA shooting is done with my SD revolvers....my 686's are range and hunting tools and I personally shoot them the majority of the time SA. Thinkin' I may have been wrong in my reply I got all 4 of them out and tried them side by side, Dry-firing in DA, one right after the other. In different order every time and with right and left hands. Even tried to pick them up and dry fire them with my eye's closed to see if I could tell them apart by the triggers. I have(should say had) 4 686's, all bought new, a -1, a -4(that I gave to my youngest son on his 18th birthday), a -5 and a -6 which is the plus model. I couldn't tell much difference. Goin' as slow as I could, I could feel the click-click a tad more with the plus, but again, that handgun has probably at least 5000 rounds less thru it than the other three. Squeezin' them thru like one is suppose to shoot them, they all felt similar.....smooth and crisp. The son that always shoots them DA claims the pull is a hair shorter with the plus, which is why he prefers it. Again....I dunno.


I do know that not every revolver is the same and some have much worse triggers than others, even within the same model line. I also know every ones hands are different and this dictates how well a handgun feels and balances in their hand. Distance from grip to trigger and length of pull vs length of finger, all kinds of variables. Having a preconceived dislike can make a difference too. Like dgludwig, I don't doubt other folk's experiences and can respect their likes and dislikes, even when they differ from my own. I only ask others do the same.
 
Now stainless or blue?
In my opinion, the blue Rugers are a lot better looking but the Stainless is hard to beat. I’m not a big fan of stainless due to the reflection of sun light but Ruger does a very good job machining lines along the top length of the barrel that reduces reflection.

that the da trigger pulls on each are the same
I would respectfully disagree that that statement. Both are good but the S&W has a shorter take up on single action but I prefer the double action of the Ruger, it seems to be more consistent through the pull.
That’s not to knock ether both are good, just slightly different. Would I pick one over the other for their trigger? No


You’d come off a bit less obnoxious,
Really, I’ll keep that in mind the next time I add to a thread where you’re involved.
 
that the da trigger pulls on each are the same
I would respectfully disagree that that statement. Both are good but the S&W has a shorter take up on single action but I prefer the double action of the Ruger,
Click to expand...

Ozzieman, the quote that you cited from my post was comparing the da trigger pulls between the Smith 686 and 686 Plus models, not between the Ruger and Smith & Wesson revolvers. I agree that the da pulls between the Ruger and the Smith are, at the least, "slightly different". I disagree with your preference in that I much prefer the da pull on the Smith as compared to the Ruger. But these are just subjective opinions. Neither is intrinsically "better" than the other; it's only that some shooters will prefer one over the other for their own individual reasons.
 
I've never seen this debate here before. :o

Bottom line, performance is comparable and upper class. But one is drop dead sexy, the other utilitarian. I believe the sexy one tends to maintain more resale also, although before someone pipes up with an Excel spreadsheet comparing all GB transactions, I haven't done a scientific research project on that subject. ;)
 
But one is drop dead sexy, the other utilitarian. I believe the sexy one tends to maintain more resale
Click to expand...

So you are saying the GP100 will hold a higher resale?:D Looks are a matter of personal choice. I think the 686 is "prettier" but the GP100 in blue looks "tougher". Neither word really accurately describes either gun. It is just a matter of personal perception. I do believe the Smith would hold a higher resale value because of past reputation. Whether it is deserved or not I would not even question because that opens up a "whole new can of worms."
 
I do believe the Smith would hold a higher resale value because of past reputation. Whether it is deserved or not I would not even question
Click to expand...
The thing is...
...the folks who really like the 686's prefer the older ones, thus they are a finite market. The GP-100's are still being made in the configuration that has made them so popular. To get the Smith & Wesson 686 that is "the most popular", you are dipping in to a group of revolvers that has a set number that will not grow.

You can absolutely strip all the emotion and opinions from it and continue to demonstrate that "value" and/or "price" simply will be affected by REAL, tangible things.
 
I took my 4" GP100 out today with a rental 6" 686+. Granted, the rental probably has a few more rounds down it, but the trigger was notably smoother with less stacking and a more linear effort. 4" barrel feels more natural and pointable though.
 
I am thoroughly unimpressed with contemporary S&W 686+ revolvers - I owned one and sold it. Awful double action trigger, clunky feeling lockwork, not nearly as accurate as my older Model 19. I'd go with the GP100 by default. Only I'd buy an older one -with those beautiful wood-inlay rubber grips. The new models with those hideous Hogue grips are just too ugly to even contemplate.

Is it just me or are any of you folks finding that almost nothing new is made as well as almost anything old?
 
Is it just me or are any of you folks finding that almost nothing new is made as well as almost anything old?
Click to expand...
Actually, I think this is like lamenting all the traffic lights that seem to constantly stop your commuting progress. When you hit yet another red light, it seems as if every trip you ever take is a series of red lights. But that's because you aren't making "special note" of all the green lights. ;)

It would be fun to make a thread where we list all the things that may be better than they were in the past. Gun-wise, I mean, on topic.
 
I own multiples of both. All the 686's are pre lock / mim and all the rugers have had the triggers worked over. Few older smiths "need" trigger work for me, all new ones I have examined do. More recent rugers seem better but still smooth out with a quick action job.


Either is a great gun, for new I would go ruger, for used whatever you get a good deal on, if you get a 686-5 or earlier it will be no lock, -4 will be no lock / no mim. Bought right you will not loose money on a -4. Used ruger gp100 will run about 100 bucks cheaper or more than the 686.

On the sunject of nothing new is good, I disagree strongly. New smiths to most anyone's critical evaluation are a bit less good than the old guns even the few they make without locks. To me less good means they need a trigger job, to others it might be something else. There are a host of guns that are better! The new gp100 for one, the new mini 14. New colt 1911's are better than what I first knew to be colt in the late 90's, they now offet s70 guns too! The overall accuracy of off the shelf bolt action rifles is much better now than 20-30 years prior even if tje guns are less attractive on average.

So there are lots of good new guns. Then there is also the ruger mk III! And a few others...
 
Last edited:
I have the Smith collectors bug, so I have a bunch. I have also looked at a bunch. Both new and old. My sense is that the new guns are much more consistent gun to gun then the old ones. However, the best new ones do not measure up to the best old ones. For instance, I have a 27-1 which has fit and finish and a trigger that blows away new guns.
 
Then there is also the ruger mk III!
Click to expand...

I might agree with your opinion that some newer guns are superior in some ways with their equivalent older models but certainly not the MKIII (assuming you weren't being sarcastic). Talk about a pistol straining mightily to provide "solutions" to non-existing "problems"! Even if new, I would pay more for a MKI or MKII rendition of Ruger's fine .22 auto pistol over the "new and improved" MKIII. Just my admittedly subjective opinion.
 
The older someone gets, the better they were/things were. There is some truth to this, and there is also truth to ups and downs in manufacturing quality of various things that we use in life.

The more modern 686s, which seem to be hated here, are extremely high quality revolvers. Some on this site have essentially called them junk or substandard, which is utter nonsense and a demonstration of predetermined bias. This kind of bias can definitely affect resale, which is important, and intraweb arguments or magazine articles, which are less important.

There is no bigger "screw in a lightbulb" issue than guns/ammo (How many gun nuts does it take to determine which is the best? All of them).
 
I own a 686+. Absolutly love it. Had the trigger honed-pull at bout 4.25lbs in DA. 6 inch barrel and 2 power scope. I deer hunt with it.
 
wolfrun
I own a 686+. Absolutly love it. Had the trigger honed-pull at bout 4.25lbs in DA. 6 inch barrel and 2 power scope. I deer hunt with it.
June 30, 2013 04:03 PM
Click to expand...

Please post a photo of it. I have the same 686 and was thinking about a scope for my tag this year.
-SS-
 
I have never shot a 6-round 686, but my Plus doesn't have a "dead-spot" in the double-action trigger.

I installed a lighter trigger and hammer spring and the gun is now amazing. Checked with all my different rounds to make sure it had no light strike misfires; everything worked perfect.

Also, a seven round has move leverage over rotating the cylinder (only has to rotate it 51 degrees, rather than 60 degrees) so theoretically the plus should have a lighter double action trigger.

Blue
 
Id say there is some truth that statement about the age of things/people. I say also ive worked in the engineering of things for quite a while and i am but 30 years old and it is almost a fact to me that material use has been stretched a bit thin from time to time in order to cut cost and produce more. Some things have gotten much better, the things that got canned because it was no good are mostly forgotten. Old guns were made with a more hands on aproach than the new ones and the differences in these are real to me. Some good some bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top