Ruger GP100 or S&W 686 ???

Why is it then that any shooting sport involving revolvers (PPC, ICORE, IPSC, IDPA) that S&W dominates? You may see the occasional Colt or Ruger but the vast majority (and most of the winners) shoot Smiths.

More proof positive of the branding effect. I notice you did not talk about objective quality, just a vague reference to the fact that other people are using it. It is a self fulfiling prophecy. Apparently you need to rethink your statistical analysis. If most people are using S&W, then isn't is likely that most winner will be using it to?

I am a Ruger fanboy. I get as good a gun for hundreds less. That makes me a fan and a very happy one at that.

P&D sells one for $650 and the other for $1125. (As an aside WTF is with these prices) A $375 difference that cannot be justified by anything other than the fanboy effect. What are you getting for $350 dollars?
 
A much higher quality revolver! ;)

I disagree. I've held both in my hands at the same time. I would say they are the same, except I prefer the pivoting cylinder release of the Ruger over the sliding of the S&W. (I know that IS subjective) But not nearly as vague as your "higher quality" statement. I call BS.

Is it better steel?
Is it a beefier design?
Is it a better mechanism?
Is it more reliable?
Is it more accurate?
Does it have better QC?

The answer is no on all accounts. I would rather get an all together equivalent gun AND 1000 rnd of ammo, then have to overpay for a S&W just so I can brag to my friends that I don't understand the value of a dollar or the mind numbing effects of branding.
 
Is it a beefier design?
There's no question that a GP100 has a thicker frame, but I've never seen it proved that a GP100 is more durable than an L-Frame S&W. Obviously I don't know specifics about the steel alloys used in each revolver, but, generally speaking, investment cast steel is not as strong as forged steel. Rugers are great revolvers, but the beefiness=strength argument is not necessarily true.
 
have 686, it's the most fun to shoot of my handguns. No experience with Ruger, and I did give them a look, but went with my gut and got the Smith.
 
Is it better steel?

Yes, forged steel. (see Master-G's post above)

Is it a beefier design?

Beefier is good for hamburgers. But for revolvers? :rolleyes:

Is it a better mechanism?

Yes, the S&W trigger mechanism is superior and easier to 'tune'.

Is it more reliable?

Function of shooter maintenance, not manufacturer.

Is it more accurate?

Function of the shooter for practical applications. But I suspect that if you placed a S&W in a Ransom rest and a Ruger in one, the S&W will come out on top.

Does it have better QC?

I've never been to the Ruger factory but I have been to the S&W plant. (Have you been to either?) From what I saw, S&W's QC is very rigourous.

The answer is no on all accounts.

Says you. Others would disagree. :D
 
step away from the 357s for a minute, and up to the 44 mag- there are numerous "stories" if you will - and probably true about the 29 going " out of tune" and timing problems- ie it can't take a steady diet of full house loads- there is no such problem with the redhawk, or super red- if they made a redhawk in 357, i'd probably get that, but i have no use for a 357 period
 
I've never been to the Ruger factory but I have been to the S&W plant. (Have you been to either?) From what I saw, S&W's QC is very rigourous.

Ummm...do you thin that this has any credibility, or for that matter logic? I base my QC opinions on the stated advice of the owners, not a 1 day factory tour. Saying you visited the hospital, does not give you evidence to comment on the quality of the surgeons. Dude really WTF?
 
P&D sells one for $650 and the other for $1125. (As an aside WTF is with these prices) A $375 difference that cannot be justified by anything other than the fanboy effect. What are you getting for $350 dollars?[/QUOTE]


P&D has (had?) a blued GP100 with the new style grips and it felt pretty good, but I was after a stainless model so I wandered over to WSS. I found quite a surprise there (revolvers in stock!).

Ruger stainless GP100 in one hand, S&W 686 in the other hand - two very similiar guns. I liked the high-vis front sight on the Smith better but anyone can change out a sight pretty quickly so that's not a deal breaker. What sold me on the Smith was the price - 699.99 for the GP100 or 779.00 for the 686 - guess where my money went?

The following week (this March) WSS's price on the 686 went up to 945.00. Having owned S&W before and never having a Ruger I went with the quality I knew and was comfortable with for an extra 80 bucks. A far greater price spread (like buying today) and I may have been tempted to try the Ruger if I absolutely had to get one right then and there.

I think this debate is much like the one between the die-hard Colt/Kimber/STI 1911 group and the Norc fans. Arguments can be made for/against both price points (quality/warranty/accuracy). Sometimes a good deal is all it takes to make up your mind.
 
step away from the 357s for a minute, and up to the 44 mag- there are numerous "stories" if you will - and probably true about the 29 going " out of tune" and timing problems- ie it can't take a steady diet of full house loads- there is no such problem with the redhawk, or super red- if they made a redhawk in 357, i'd probably get that, but i have no use for a 357 period

I think the S&Ws are fine with 240-250 grain bullets; it's mainly full-house loads with the heavier bullets that are hard on them. This is definitely one thing the Redhawk does better.

John Ross, author of Unintended Consequences, has an interesting proposal on how S&W could address this niche with a shortened version of their X-Frame:

http://john-ross.net/pdfs/mags.pdf
 
I think this debate is much like the one between the die-hard Colt/Kimber/STI 1911 group and the Norc fans. Arguments can be made for/against both price points (quality/warranty/accuracy). Sometimes a good deal is all it takes to make up your mind.

Dude! You didn't just try and compare the GP100 to a norc did you? :kickInTheNuts::kickInTheNuts:

GP 100's have most excellent QC. As good as the best out there. Norcs have to compete on price because they can't compete on quality. However, the GP IS a quality piece. Not better than the S&W by any means, but an equal in every way but price.

If they were 80$ different, I can see you going for whichever felt better in your hands. But not at the price spreads they are asking for now.
 
Last edited:
I owned a 686 and loved it. I've shot the Ruger in .44 and also loved it. That means it has to come down to price and look--- only you can make that decision.
I think you'll win either way personally.
 
Dude! You didn't just try and compare the GP100 to a norc did you? :kickInTheNuts::kickInTheNuts:

GP 100's have most excellent QC. As good as the best out there. Norcs have to compete on price because they can't compete on quality. However, the GP IS a quality piece. Not better than the S&W by any means, but an equal in every way but price.

If they were 80$ different, I can see you going for whichever felt better in your hands. But not at the price spreads they are asking for now.


Put down the glue-filled bag and back away...:rolleyes:

I was referring to the debate between the different 1911 owners on which manufacturer is better. Both sides debate each others QC, etc but the individual decision is ultimately based on the owner's budgets and their perceptions of quality (or lack there of). It seemed to be very similiar to the S&W vs. Ruger debate.

Besides, any yahoo knows a Norc will embarass a Ruger on the range!:D
 
Here is what gunsmith Grant Cunningham thinks about GP100:

http://www.grantcunningham.(remove)com/blog_files/448400adaed4f0a82d4961b5b2d91d8b-116.html

"What revolver should I buy?"

Monday, December 18, 2006 Filed in: Revolvers, Personal opinions, General gun stuff

If I had a nickel for every time I've been asked that question...!

On every forum, in my daily email, and in the phone calls I receive is a common query: "of the guns available at a dealer, which one should I buy?" These folks are looking for some guidance beyond the simple choice of caliber and barrel length - this is more along the lines of "who makes the 'best' revolver?"

The answer I give? Ruger. This, from an admitted revolver snob who's known for working on Colt Pythons!

The GP-100 and SP-101, which are the most popular models, are mature designs. Their design is simple and rugged, and their construction has not changed due to fashion or cost-cutting.

The actions respond nicely to gunsmithing work; a well tuned Ruger can have a buttery-smooth, perfectly linear double action pull that will rival any of its competitors. The SP-101, in particular, has an action that is many people feel is more "shootable" than its nearest competitor, the S&W "J" frame.

Speaking of the SP-101, it has another advantage over its competition: superb sights. The rear fixed notch is wide and deep compared to other guns, giving the little SP a much nicer sight picture.

The GP and SP guns, because of their stud grip frames, have trigger reaches that fit people with small hands very well; the GP-100, fitted with the "compact" Ruger grip, has a shorter trigger reach than a S&W "L" frame! This is great news for those of us with smaller-than-average mitts.

The downsides? Fit and finish on Ruger revolvers is not up to the level of, say, older S&W guns. (Of course, new S&W's aren't up to the old S&W's either, so that's hardly a condemnation!) Rugers have lots of sharp edges, and their finishes are not terribly pretty - but, if you're having custom work done anyhow, these are things that can be easily rectified.

Rugers don't get the credit they deserve; if you don't like the new MIM-internal lock S&W models, and want something of better pedigree than the Taurus line, take a hard look at Ruger. You might be surprised!
 
The S&W is by far the best pistol on the Market today, you will not regret this purchase especially if you want to sell it later, the S&W holds its value very well
 
Smith revolver triggers are as good as it gets, I'm a huge Smith fan when it comes to revolvers ( I've owned at least 2 of every Frame size except the X Frame). That said if the difference is big enough to affect the amount of shooting you do, go with what lets you shoot the most.

Hmm, I dont know, I own 2X SW revolvers (686, 629) and Both do not match up to my Colt Python :D:D

In revolvers, the Python's got the BEST trigger.... Period (stock anyway)
 
Pythons are nicely finished and have good triggers, but their long term durability, especially with heavy loads, leaves something to be desired and few gunsmiths work on them.

For looks, I prefer the S&W Model 27, with its gracefully tapered, half-lugged barrel, over the Python, with its vented rib and full underlug.

Come to think of it, I wish S&W would make a 5" version of the 686 Mountain Gun they made a run of a few years back. The weight would be comparable to a Model 19, but the gun would be better suited to a steady diet of .357 Magnum.
 
Back
Top Bottom