S&W 686 vs Ruger Match GP100

[arthury]

I'm going to feed it with a constant flow of 357Mag reloaded to the upper half of the pressure curve.
What are your thoughts? Which one is better?
Please balance it between accuracy and "built like a tank".

Thanks!

[Petrol & Powder]

In all fairness this is actually a very close poll.

The L-frame Smith's are great guns and so are the Ruger's.

The GP-100 gets a lot of criticism, generally involving the perceived quality of the trigger. Both guns are very strong and durable. The Ruger may have a slight advantage in terms of overall strength but that is like saying a 100 pound anvil is stronger than a 95 pound anvil. They are both more than strong enough.

The argument about the S&W trigger being better than the GP-100 has existed about as long as those two models have been on the market. While the GP trigger may not always be the equal of the S&W "out of the box" it is not terrible (OK the early GP-100's were pretty heavy). The trigger on the GP-100 can be improved and the GP-100 action is extremely strong. If you're willing to tinker with your Ruger just a bit, the trigger can be made the equal of a new S&W and almost the equal of an old S&W.

I've owned, worked on and shot both L-Frame S&W's and GP-100's. They are both excellent guns. The Ruger has a slight advantage in strength but they are both stronger than needed by a large margin. The Ruger almost always has a price advantage, probably due to the Smith & Wesson brand name recognition. The S&W may have a better (smoother, lighter) trigger "out of the box" but the Ruger trigger is not doomed to be inferior.

It's a close call.

[wddodge]

I like my Smith but if I was planning to shoot nothing but hot .357s it's have to be in the Ruger. Some may complain of Rugers finish or their triggers but nobody complains about their strength.

Denny

[maxreloader]

I have shot a Ruger GP100 Match Champion and it is a very fine piece of equipment for sure!

[PerpetualStudent]

I was going between the GP100 and the 686. Both are available in a 7 round cylinder I think, which is nice. The accepted wisdom (I was told) is the 686 is slicker and the GP100 is tougher but neither leads by too much. When trying the triggers I actually much preferred the GP100, it had a surprise break while the 686 felt pseudo-two-stagey. Nothing against a two stage trigger, I just didn't like it. It felt neither fish nor fowl to me.

Then I fell in love with a Dan Wesson at a gunshow and didn't get either :bigsmyl2: it had a 6 in barrel that didn't feel front heavy while both the GP100 and 686 only felt balanced to me with the 4 in. My 2 cents.

[dilly]

For accuracy and robustness, I would pick the GP100 match because the Rugers are a tad bit more robust and I would guess the Match Champions may have tighter tolerances on the throats. That is literally a guess.

However, if I were to buy one for myself I might get the 686 SSR. Having held that in my hand, that is the most desirable 357 to me. Too bad I don't have the money for it!

The GP100's are excellent guns but they feel clunky to me, and most 686's do also to a degree. I prefer the K frame size and Ruger Security/Speed/Service six line, or even smaller.

[Bigslug]

I vote standard GP-100 for the underlug and beefier barrel that were trimmed from the Match Target. Cute as the M.T. is, for a steady diet of the hot stuff, a little extra ballast is not a bad thing. The trigger will break in quite nicely, thank you, with a bit of excessive lube and a lot of range time/dry fire.

[Boolit_Head]

I've got a 686 that was fed a steady diet of 357 for 20 years. Had it since the 80's. Still ticking like it was new. Get a nice trigger job done on them and they are hard to beat.

[Mk42gunner]

I voted for the GP-100. I have not had any newish revolvers in the last dozen or so years, but I have owned or shot extensively a few DA .357's, S&W's- 4" model 28 and 686, 6" 586 and 686 Classic Hunter, Ruger 4" and 6" GP-100. They all needed an action job although the Classic Hunter was the best out of the box.

The one I kept is the 4" GP-100. It fits my needs better than the longer ones, but I think the 6" GP-100 was slightly more accurate.

Robert

[6bg6ga]

My vote is for the 686. Tried them both side by side t the gun show and walked off with the 686. Trigger was smoother and broke better with less effort. Didn't notice any two stage effect in the trigger either just a real nice break. At the range with my hand loads I can always out shoot the guy next to me with the Ruger GP-100. Maybe I just got and extra good one.

[NC_JEFF]

I voted for the 686, I've owned one for years and it's always been accurate, smooth and shows no sign of being bothered by a steady diet of Magnum loads. It is accurate with my handloads from 38 specials on up

[Lloyd Smale]

another 686 vote. Ive yet to find one that wasn't a shooter and the factory ones are good enough that it doesn't justify a performance center version. Never handled one of the match rugers but the standard gp100s ive owned and shot compared to the smiths was like comparing a caddy escalade or Lincoln navigator to a jeep wrangler.

[Forrest r]

I've got a 686 that was fed a steady diet of 357 for 20 years. Had it since the 80's. Still ticking like it was new. Get a nice trigger job done on them and they are hard to beat.

Me, to.
Bought a 586 nib back in 1987 and put over 170,000+ rounds thru it. Most of it being full house 357's. Pat's reloading is around the corner and used to buy cases (cases ='s 4 8# jugs or #32's) at a time (multiple times) of wc820 and burn it up in that 586. In 2002? I sent it back to s&w to have the timing rebuilt, they also redid the throat and rest the bbl. Had over 100,000 rounds thru it at that point. Got it back and beat on it to last year putting 70,000+ more rounds thru it, mostly 357's. The bbl finely gave up the ghost, chronographed loads that I've used/tested for decades and was getting 100fps less for the same load.

At the end of the day I bought that 586, shot it until I wore the timing out. Sent it back to s&w and they fixed it on their $$$ including shipping. The shot it until I shot the bbl out. Then I got another cylinder and bbl for a 586-1 and installed them and sold that 586 for $400 to fund a new 686.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t242/forrestr-photo/586receipt_zps69828c98.jpg (http://s162.photobucket.com/user/forrestr-photo/media/586receipt_zps69828c98.jpg.html)

That's $365 ($265 nib + $100 used cylinder/bbl) invested in a 586 that I used/shot for 30 years and sold for more $$$ than I had in it.

My new 686 next to another favorite 357, a dw along with some of extremely accurate plinking loads, a 110gr wc doing 1300fps+ in 357 cases.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t242/forrestr-photo/110gr357s_zps6cepphtj.jpg (http://s162.photobucket.com/user/forrestr-photo/media/110gr357s_zps6cepphtj.jpg.html)

I haven't done allot of load development/accuracy testing but I have managed to come up with these loads.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t242/forrestr-photo/keepers_zpsrmfa629l.jpg (http://s162.photobucket.com/user/forrestr-photo/media/keepers_zpsrmfa629l.jpg.html)

The ruger being more robust than a 586 is nothing more than urban legend/internet myth. Put 170,000+ rounds in your gp100 and we'll compare the cylinders and bbl's (I still have the old 586 parts).

I've never had a problem with the accuracy of any s&w I've ever owned. I'm sure that the gp100 "target" model will chew bugholes in targets like my 686 does. Triggers are always subjective and most triggers can be tuned.

The bottom line is that s&w's are known for their triggers and accuracy, so the rugers have to rise up/match/equal that. That leaves strength & anyone that says the gp100 is stronger than a l-frame, ain't got a clue!!!!

Why isn't ruger using their gp frames on a 44mag???? S&W IS with their l-frames, namely the model 69 44mag. I guess the people that keep saying the l-frames aren't that strong aren't aware of the s&w model 69. Here's a link to that revolver.

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_827559_-1_757767_757751_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

Myself, I tend to look at the reality of things.

Trigger: equal, both can be tuned
Accuracy: s&w
Strength: s&w, their using that same l-frame in a 44mag, ruger isn't.

[M-Tecs]

Forrest R

Nice post. I do limit the amount of 357's I shoot in my 19/66's. In my 686's I shoot whatever I want. Thought I had a high round count on one but I'm not close to you.

[Petrol & Powder]

Forrest r - impressive round count and solid information.

As for the question "Why isn't Ruger using their GP frames on a 44 mag.?" That question by itself doesn't prove that Ruger cannot build a 44 Mag on their GP frame, it merely points out that Ruger hasn't done so.

There are a lot of unknown variables that impact Ruger's decision on what guns they choose to manufacture, not the least of which is they may simply not wish to build a 44 on the GP frame. I suspect it has more to do with perceived market, not wanting to compete with themselves, maybe they're selling enough guns anyway, cost of tooling and other factors that I can't begin to know.

As for the GP frame not being strong enough for a 44 mag chambering, I don't think the strength of the GP frame is the limiting factor in making a 44 on the GP frame.

As for the S&W L-frame being a strong gun; there is no doubt that the L-frame is strong and your 170K rounds is good evidence of that strength. So the S&W is clearly strong enough and then some by a considerable margin.

The GP-100 has a different design than the S&W, notably it lacks a side plate and the crane locks to the frame when the cylinder is closed. I don't think those features are necessary (the S&W lacks them and we've already established the S&W is more than strong enough) but I do think the GP has an additional layer of strength, practically in the area of cylinder bolting. That extra strength is academic and likely never needed.

Bill Ruger commented that the detent that latches the end of the ejector rod to the barrel lug adds very little to the locking of the cylinder. I agree, the end of the ejector rod is too far from the cylinder to do much good in terms of cylinder bolting. The "Six" series Rugers had a latch at the end of the ejector rod similar to the S&W design, Ruger eliminated that latch in the GP-100 design. Ruger designed the lock on the GP crane reminiscent of the S&W triple lock. That lock on the crane is clearly not needed. S&W dropped the crane lock after the triple lock and Colt never even had an ejector rod lock to start with.
In any event, there isn't a huge amount of force working to open the cylinder during firing. Most of that force is directed to the recoil shield, the walls of the chambers, the top strap and the barrel. Again, the GP-100 and the S&W L-frames are PLENTY strong in those areas.

I think there is some legitimate argument that the GP design may be stronger than the S&W but as I stated earlier, that's like saying a 100 pound anvil is stronger than a 95 pound anvil. They are both strong enough and you'll never see the difference.

[Kraschenbirn]

No vote here. I've got both...a 4" 586 and a 4.25" 'Match Champion"...and would hate to have to pick between the two. The Ruger's "out-of-the-box" DA trigger wasn't up to standard of the old-model L-frames but cleaned up to where it's nearly as smooth as the Smith's...which has sent well over 25K rounds down the barrel. Accuracy is pretty much a dead heat...both shoot better than I can hold these days. So far as durability...the 586 was used when I bought it but, other than a couple of spring replacements, hasn't needed any work at all in the twenty+ years since; the Ruger is a recent acquisition but seems just as solid as the old flat-top Blackhawk I bought new in 1964 (and still shoot a couple times a year, just for old times' sake).

Bill

[arthury]

Thank you to all you nice folks for sharing your experiences in addition to the voting. Really appreciate that a lot!

I have placed the order for my 686 and should be getting it next week.

[robertbank]

I did change out my trigger return spring and the mainspring on my Ruger GP100. The trigger is smoother than my 686 No Dash. Both guns are equally robust and accurate. My 4.2" Ruger weighs less than my 105.17MM barreled 686 which surprised me when I weighed both guns. I shoot the Ruger in IDPA Rev Division and use the 686 as back up. The Ruger is of a more modern design and I understand the new 686's are not as well made as the older versions. That comment is very subjective so Smith owners don't roast me for saying that.

To the OP the Ruger twins clean up pretty well. From what I have read a lot of guys don't think the Match Champion offers much for the additional cost over the regular GP-100. If I didn't already own a GP-100 I suppose I would pay the extra but I am not sure why.

Take Care

Bob

[waarp8nt]

I have owned a GP100 and a 686. I sold the GP100 and now own two 686's. IMO S&W does an excellent job with the double action revolver.

[oger]

I realize that the old Smith 28 was not part of the question but it is the best of both worlds. If you find one with a lot of holster wear and little round count it can be acquired for a very reasonable price and there is no better trigger and you simply can't hurt it.

[AK Caster]

I stopped listening to the debate that Ruger builds a stronger guns years ago. I have never needed to send back a Smith, any Smith for recoil or timing issues. And if I have to S&W will repair it for free and pick up shipping back and forth. My choice is the 686.

[bullseye67]

I have both 686's and a GP100's. When the Match Champion came out I was ready to order one. I was at the club and another member was shooting a Match Champion. I was shooting both 4.2+6 inch GP100s that day. I asked to give it a try. We we switched stations and after a couple of cylinders, I got a tap on the shoulder and was asked if I wanted to trade for my GP100 4.2 inch. I said no thanks and that ended my "wanting" a Match Champion. If and only if I could only have S&W or GP100 it would be a tough choice. I would lean towards the 686. Mostly because they are always saleable and usually for more than originally purchased.

[ClemY]

I voted for the 686. I have a 686SSR and a GP100. With work the trigger of the GP100 is very good, but I think the trigger on the 686SSR is the best revolver trigger I own. Either would provide good service; the GP100 may be a bit more robust, but the 686 is also built for high endurance with full power .357 loads. Chevy or Ford?

[Mauser48]

I voted the GP-100. I own the 6 inch one and used to have the 4. They are both nice but the 6 is more shootable. I wish I had both but it is what it is. I have only put about 300 rounds theough it so far. I cant shoot handguns for **** and I can shoot this one pretty decent. I have only shot light .38's in it. It is so much fun with the swc bullets. I would buy it again over the smith. I think it is everything the smith is and more. They are both great guns for sure. My trigger is pretty good. About 3.5 or 4 pounds single action. The double action is a little heavy but it is pretty smooth. Get whichever one feels better to you. And for the 7 shot smith, its just an extra cylinder to clean.

[mtgrs737]

As far as I am concerned, either revolver is a Good Choice. I comes down to personal fit and function. My advice is to go to a range that offers gun rental and try them both, then based on your experience choose the one you want to live with. As far as strength, both are probably strong enough for a steady diet of magnum velocity loads. I would like to point out that there is a difference in how each is constructed. The Ruger is produced using an investment casting process that does not provide grain orientation of the grain in the metal like the forging process that S&W and Colt use does. That is why the Ruger handguns have a thicker cross section and a heavier weight to them. Both are plenty strong and should serve you well, so it is just a matter of personal choice.

[dannyd]

Ruger all the way have 5 GP's don't ever think about a Smith when I go to the store to look for another revolver

[g17]

If buying new, I'm voting Ruger GP100. If it were a prelock 686, that's what I would go with.

[Eddie17]

I've voted in this for Ruger Match GP100 because this is all I own. I would really someday like to own a SW also. Just want to say 3 times going to to range with the Ruger MC first shot of the day, knocked the X out of target at 75' , standing! Gun shoots better then I do.
165390165390
sorry about same photo twice.

[JMax]

I have had both and have Smiths only. All my shooting is DA only, I have big hands and have observed too many irritated trigger fingers after shooting and attribute the problem due to the narrow trigger on all Ruger's by design and a shorter trigger radius than found on Smiths that use the same trigger with different trigger widths available for K thru N frame revolvers. I do not like the narrow trigger available but love the medium smooth width for all three frames and was High Master in PPC many years ago and am currently A class in ICORE.

My best recommendation is to use what fits you best and shoot a lot.

[Tatume]

Why isn't ruger using their gp frames on a 44mag? S&W IS with their l-frames, namely the model 69 44mag. I guess the people that keep saying the l-frames aren't that strong aren't aware of the s&w model 69.

Actually, that's not quite correct. S&W made some substantial modifications to the L-frame revolver to accommodate the 44 Rem Mag cartridge. In particular, they made the frame and barrel shank substantially thicker to contain the pressure and forcing cone impact of the 44. The frame had previously been used for a 44 Special in the Model 696, and a quick examination of the thin barrel shank should convince anybody to not feed 44 Rem Mag equivalent ammo to the Model 696.

Nevertheless, my choice is also the S&W Model 686.

Take care, Tom

[tazman]

Today I had my choice between 2 different GP100s and a used S&W 686. All were the same price. The Rugers were new and the 686 was used but looked new.
I chose the s&w 686.
It just felt better all the way around. Better balance. Better trigger. Better sights.

[Muk]

I have a GP100 match champion 6 shot, I had a real hard time between it and a 7 shot 686, if it wasn't the match champion I would have definitely got the 686. The match champions trigger was much better than the standard gp100 and slightly better than the 686

[Lonegun1894]

I have 3 GP100s, a SP101, and a Security Six, among other Rugers, and used to have a S&W 13. I also have friends that are obsessed with various S&Ws, so have shot many of their offerings including the 586 and 686. All have been good guns, but the only one that stands out as having a MUCH better than average trigger is the M13 I used to have. Now, I do my own trigger jobs so cost isn't a factor for me, but my Rugers have triggers just as good as any factory S&W I have ever shot except that old M13. Now the standard GP100 (which I voted for) vs the Match Champion, I have shot both, and the MC feels a lot like the Security Six which I love, but it is more a balance difference than anything else. Both shoot great.

I would say that they are all good choices that the OP listed in the poll, so if possible, handle, and even better, shoot all of them, and then buy the one the OP likes best. If it was my money, it would go for a Ruger, but since it isn't, the OP should just get whatever he likes best cause he only has to make himself happy.

[6bg6ga]

I would be interested to see how many lbs pull the triggers are for the Match GP and the S&W.

[Harry O]

I have three GP-100's, a S&W 586 and a 686. None of the Rugers had acceptable triggers when I got them. I got the light-spring pack for each of them. The lightest mainspring did not work on any of the Rugers. Unreliable ignition. The middle weight spring worked in two of them. The heaviest spring (which is still lighter than the factory spring) was needed on one of them. The lighter trigger return spring did not work in any of them, and that is after cleaning up the cast box (piece) it is in. After doing this, the triggers were much better in the Rugers, but still could not touch the S&W's. I never changed anything with the S&W;s.

For me, practical accuracy (offhand single and double-action shooting) is better with both the S&W's. However, from a rest, the accuracy is equal for Rugers and S&W's. I only shoot full power .357 Magnum loads in these guns. Mostly the 358156 gascheck with 2400 powder. If I am going to shoot a .38 Special load, I use a .38 Special gun (almost all of them are S&W's).

[kawasakifreak77]

Missed the vote but I have a pre zit 686 & the new Match chamion in my safe now.

For accuracy & a nicer action the Smith wins. The Match champion is nice but even with the extra factory work it doesn't have the finese of the Smith. The Mc sights are really nice, fast & I have loads that are are 'Ruger only' for that gun.

If I could only have one I would I would have the Smith. Not saying the Mc is a bad gun, just still not up to par with a Smith.

Best bet, buy both! ;)