686 vs gp100 price difference

Would you guys pay over $350 (incl. HST) more for a s&w 686+ 7 shot with a 6” barrel and nice rosewood grips over a stock 4.2” gp100? Both brand new.


Buy whichever you like, and what you can afford.

Smith is always more expensive than Ruger, if you can- buy both and blast away. :)
 
They are rather different guns, intended for different kinds of shooting. Do you want a cool target gun, or a service-type pistol? If you're asking whether the Smith is worth the extra money, I would reply that the Smith is worth more than the GP100...but by how much depends on your tastes...
 
The 686+ or pretty much any revolver that holds more than 6 rounds in the cylinder is in a league of its own. As others have said, depending on what you want to do with te gun, the 686+ may or may not be for you, though it is an excellent revolver nonetheless. Bear in mind, if you plan on doing any action shooting with it, the two major disciplines prohibit you from firing more than 6 rounds before a reload, so having an extra chamber may actually complicate things, not to mention the fact that 7 round speed loaders seem to be difficult to find here in Canada.
 
I have a S&W 686 Deluxe (7 shot).
I love it, i held both the ruger and the S&W and couldn't put it down.
But yes Speed loaders are an issue if you dont just want the HKS.
 
The 686+ or pretty much any revolver that holds more than 6 rounds in the cylinder is in a league of its own. As others have said, depending on what you want to do with te gun, the 686+ may or may not be for you, though it is an excellent revolver nonetheless. Bear in mind, if you plan on doing any action shooting with it, the two major disciplines prohibit you from firing more than 6 rounds before a reload, so having an extra chamber may actually complicate things, not to mention the fact that 7 round speed loaders seem to be difficult to find here in Canada.

What he said. x2.

The Ruger will likely need the cylinders reamed out to .358 if you intend to ever shoot lead in the gun. Ruger revolvers are famous for to tight cylinders. Three of mine were less than .356 while the other two were less than .357. The Ruger front sight is easy to replace with FO front if you intend to go that way.

Take Care

Bob
 
If you can afford it buy the Smith. If money is an issue then settle for the Ruger.Graydog
I've always been a Smith guy, but I just bought a GP100 and I don't feel like I "settled". The trigger was heavy but smooth and responded well to a little polishing. I love the way the GP100 feels in my hands. The beefy look is awesome. For the money I saved, I picked up enough ammo to keep me shooting for quite some time.
 
Bear in mind, if you plan on doing any action shooting with it, the two major disciplines prohibit you from firing more than 6 rounds before a reload, so having an extra chamber may actually complicate things,...


Not true for ICORE which is the ultimate action shooting sport for revolvers!
 
They are rather different guns, intended for different kinds of shooting. Do you want a cool target gun, or a service-type pistol? If you're asking whether the Smith is worth the extra money, I would reply that the Smith is worth more than the GP100...but by how much depends on your tastes...

I guess I would consider myself more of a collector then an action shooter. Don’t get me wrong, I truly enjoy shooting but its more about quality then quantity. I want to have quality guns that mean and represent something rather than “indestructible” pieces that shoot well (i.e. Norinco 1911). For all these reasons I’m leaning towards the s&w, but the $350 price difference is a big factor. It’s half the price of the Ruger.
 
I guess I would consider myself more of a collector then an action shooter. Don’t get me wrong, I truly enjoy shooting but its more about quality then quantity. I want to have quality guns that mean and represent something rather than “indestructible” pieces that shoot well (i.e. Norinco 1911). For all these reasons I’m leaning towards the s&w, but the $350 price difference is a big factor. It’s half the price of the Ruger.

In that case, does it really have to be the 6" 686+? Perhaps take a look at the 4.25", 6 shot model instead; losing that extra round will knock a bit off the price tag, though no matter which way you slice it, the S&W will cost more than the Ruger. Whether or not the extra cost for the Smith is largely up to you.
 
Last edited:
Would you guys pay over $350 (incl. HST) more for a s&w 686+ 7 shot with a 6” barrel and nice rosewood grips over a stock 4.2” gp100? Both brand new.

Two different revolvers. Apples and oranges comparison, IMO.

I would love to own both eventually. I would buy the GP100 4.2 first because it will be more useful to me. I can even shoot IDPA with it, if ever IDPA comes to my club.

The 7 shot 6 inch 686 has limited use for me.
 
Just for the record- Ruger GP100 is an extremely accurate revolver. Shoots like a laser beam.

I wanted to clarify that, as others have mentioned it to be more of a service revolver, and Smith to be target revolver.

I would not bet the farm that Smith is any more accurate than Ruger.

Some people may find Smith more refined and less beefy looking than Ruger... some like tough and heavy look of Ruger.


Also... putting Ruger and Norinco in the same sentence is an illegal act. Careful! ;)
 
Also... putting Ruger and Norinco in the same sentence is an illegal act. Careful! ;)

I totally agree! From reading posts and reviews I thought that the GP100 would be to revolvers what Norinco is to 1911s, cheap, built like a tank, good shooter and reliable but not very pretty and detailed oriented. That is CLEARLY not the case.

I ended up getting the Ruger today.
I found a shop that had both revolvers in stock and after taking a careful look at them side by side I honestly couldn’t see any difference in fit and finish. The brushed stainless steel was identical on the two. The Ruger had absolutely no sharp edges or scratches or any other imperfection. The s&w didn’t exhibit any signs of being more “refined” and actually showed the polishing swirls off a lot more. So if the performance and quality is comparable which it is I really couldn’t justify paying almost $400 (incl. Tax) more for just the name, and the trigger I guess. $100-probably, $200-maybe but not $400.

Thanks for all your input.
 
Just a bump as I am considering one of the 2.

I was advised to go Smith all the way. The Ruger's are okay but the trigger is not that great. So my question is there much to getting them triggers a little better? Just some polishing?
 
Just a bump as I am considering one of the 2.

I was advised to go Smith all the way. The Ruger's are okay but the trigger is not that great. So my question is there much to getting them triggers a little better? Just some polishing?

I would have gone with S&W myself but they are priced way to high. GP100 is a nice option for a .357 Maybe when Im looking at a .44 then I'll go with smith.
 
Back
Top Bottom