Ruger GP100 or S&W 686
- Thread starter Waldo666
- Start date
That's why it's important to inspect them in person. QC is lacking in the American firearm business.
Yeah I always inspect Smiths for;
-barrel alignment
-crown
-signs of cylinder peening "from bad timing or weak metal"
-bent ejector rod
-crane gap
-free play
I found barrel alignment is the biggest issue followed by bad crowns. If you find a good Smith, they can't be beat and its not hard to find a good one "if you look"
-barrel alignment
-crown
-signs of cylinder peening "from bad timing or weak metal"
-bent ejector rod
-crane gap
-free play
I found barrel alignment is the biggest issue followed by bad crowns. If you find a good Smith, they can't be beat and its not hard to find a good one "if you look"
Last edited:
I would never own a GP100 for one simple reason...
That ugly ass unfinished cast grip frame.
Clearly you have never put a modern Smith beside a Modern Ruger. The finish these days is almost identical on both. Not saying the GP100 is a pretty gun but neither are the modern Smiths.
I have a GP100. It was 60% the price of a 686. For similar price I would have bought the 686. For a 40% rebate I'm happy with the GP100. Both a great, but the GP100 gets on sale from time to time, the 686 I've never seen it on sale.
Exactly as everyone else is saying....they're close but general consensus seems to be that the Ruger is tougher (but how often does one break a revolver?) and the S&W a little more refined, but both are good. I went with a stainless Ruger based on price, reputation for being rugged, and at the time I actually thought it looked a little better... can't quite put my finger on why, though. The GP100 was my first handgun.
Smith and Wesson by far.....the button to open the cylinder and the cylinder jammed up on me several times on the gp100......the gunsmith said the tolerances are to tight when they get dirty......will never buy a ruger revolver ever again
highlander
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Newfoundland
My thoughts exactly.
Only true compared to K frames (or redhawks compared to N frames). 686 L frame is dimensionally similar to the GP (and slightly heavier) and I have yet to see anything in the past 30 years to suggest the GP is stronger than the L (or maybe more accurately, can outlive the L). Given how popular both revolvers are, surely we would see the evidence by now. Interestingly S&W makes a 44 Mag out of the L frame and ruger does not with the GP.
Fair enough. That the Ruger is tougher is not my opinion per say, just the result of the internet reviews and hearsay when I was researching the same choice some years ago. That said, it's not like I've seen a bunch of 686 owners complaining that they broke their gun in half, or anything...
The Ruger is objectively tougher because of how the frame is built compared to the Smith. The single-piece ("unibody") frame design is superior to the side plate-based construction of other revolver frames, S&W included. My personal comparisons also point to the GP100 being made with thicker amounts of steel in some critical areas, such as around the crane and on the crane itself. This is why I ultimately opted for the GP100 despite it actually being a bit more expensive in Canada than the 686. I love Smith as a brand and respect their reputation very much, but in this case, they just don't win the reliability contest as far as I'm concerned.
Maybe single piece is superior but it doesn't matter if it is at an irrelevant point from a stress perspective or at a point that is never going to fail anyway. It would have zero bearing on reliability.
If you really want get into design elements, Smith's are forged and forged is objectively stronger (whether that is the case between the L or GP100 i don"t think matters but just making the point). Smith makes a 44 mag on the L frame. Again, Ruger does not make a 44 mag GP. Some custom builders like Clement will not build a GP in anything more powerful than 10mm because the resulting forcing cone would be too thin and would crack. I'd argue that is an objectively weaker point on the GP.
If you like the Ruger more that is totally cool. My only point is saying it is better because it is stronger, is not accurate or backed up by testing or 30 years of extensive use of both platforms.
Last edited:
