More Q's on Ruger Gp 141/161

[wonderwolf]

I'm still trying to settle on which manufacture I want to go with for a 357 multi use (if there is such a thing)revolver. I know Ruger made 500 of their gp100's in a 5" bbl but thats a lil too much money even though IMHO the 5" bbl is best all around bbl length. I've shot a 6" S&W 586 a lot along with a 681 4". The fixed sights are ok with me but I don't prefer them esp for target work. I've pretty much been sold on the sturdiness of the Rugers but I'm not sure on how accurate they can be/are? since I've yet to shoot one. How do they compare with S&W's? I do a lot of longer range revolver shooting and my Smiths have always come through but in the past 2 years they have been failing mechanically in various ways (loose, worn & broken parts, Factory has taken care of them so far).

So how does the Ruger pony up to longer range shooting accuracy wise with say factory 357 loads out of the box (full knowing I would never buy factory ammo for it)? The few examples I've handled I noted the ejection star seemed undersized or was this just me? How is the balance and "usability" of it compare? I know the frame is a lot beefier but I notice balance issues when there is more weight higher up on a frame or when a full underlug is lacking. :Fire:

I like my smiths don't get me wrong but unless I find a old 686 I don't think I'm going to buy new from them.

[anachronism]

I have both. Buy the Ruger. I have a 6 in. GP100 that I set up for deer hunting. It got a blaze orange Millett front sight, a trigger job & a set of Hogue rubber grips. The 686 has a better "out of the box" trigger pull, but the tuned Ruger trigger comes close enough for my tastes to the tuned S&W to make it a non-issue. The single-action is a tough more creepy, but nothing I can't live with. Another plus: The 686 needs to be retimed again, I don't think I've ever had a Ruger get loose. One thing, the older GPs seem to be better than the newer ones. Mine was made when Bill was still alive.

[fecmech]

I have a GP100 from about 15 years ago. Using the Lyman 358429 at 1200 fps my gun averaged 1.91" for four 5 shot groups @ 50 yds off the bench. Using .38 specials with the RN bullet at about 900 fps it runs 2.5-2.75" at 50 yds. The single action trigger on mine is the equal of Smiths I have used over the years but the DA is not quite as good, it "stacks" just before let off. Good luck which ever you buy.

[Harry O]

I bought a Ruger GP100 last year with a 6" barrel. I already had an L-frame S&W 686 with a 4" barrel. It is accurate. I felt the GP100 with the 4" barrel at gunshows and it felt balanced to a little nose-light to me, but I already had a 4". I felt the one with the 6" barrel and it felt nose heavy. A 5" would probably have been perfect. However, I eventually ran across one with a short-underlug. Although they are not common, I'll bet there are more of them than 5"ers. That felt just right, so I bought it.

The trigger pull was too heavy to get the best accuracy. It was not nearly as good as my S&W offhand. So I bought one of the replacement (lighter) spring kits for it. That is WELL worth the money. I put in the lightest mainsping first (8#). Shooting offhand was MUCH better. However, I did get 2 or 3 failure-to-fire out of 100 rounds (this was Magnum primers). I changed it to the next heavier spring (10#) and have not had a failure-to-fire yet. The trigger pull is not as nice as the S&W even with the 10# spring, but it is close enough that I can get it to shoot.

There is no doubt that the Ruger can take heavier loads than the S&W 686. I have shot quite a few reloads of 15.0gr of 2400 with a 158gr jacketed bullet. I will not shoot that in my S&W 686. Most of the time, though, I shoot 13.5gr of 2400 with 358156-GC bullets through both of them. They are about both equally accurate offhand now.

[sd5782]

I have one of the 5" full underlug GP100's. I bought new several years ago. You are correct, it balances nicely, and just looks "right". I just plink with it. I have changed springs for a better trigger.
I do believe that S&W offered a 5" 686 just a couple of years ago. It was a fine looking gun also, and probably has a better trigger.
Good luck looking; that is half the fun.

[EOD3]

The Ruger is available with or without a full underlug. For instance, the 161 has a full underlug and the 160 doesn't. I have one of the 161 (6" bbl) guns that shoots better than I do. I prefer the full underlug as it adds weight to the front of the gun making it more controllable.

IMHO, if you plan to shoot paper, get the 6", if you plan to carry (and drive) with a hip holster you'll want the 4".

Just my BAC, YMMV

[wonderwolf]

The Ruger is available with or without a full underlug. For instance, the 161 has a full underlug and the 160 doesn't. I have one of the 161 (6" bbl) guns that shoots better than I do. I prefer the full underlug as it adds weight to the front of the gun making it more controllable.

IMHO, if you plan to shoot paper, get the 6", if you plan to carry (and drive) with a hip holster you'll want the 4".

Just my BAC, YMMV

Thats why the 5" is the best lol :drinks: