Ruger GP100 or S&W 686

I never even used the word better. That's too subjective. I was talking about durability, and between the two models being compared, the Ruger comes out on top.

I also didn't bring up 44, because that was irrelevant to the discussion.

I'm not telling the guy what to get, however. There are many factors beyond durability to consider. Most people won't put either gun through the stress it takes to cause the kind of malfunction we're discussing anyway so this is mostly just conversation.
 
If you can afford to shoot enough .357 to exceed the S&W L-frames durability then you can afford to buy a new gun after a few hundred thousand rounds.

McHoss, Enjoy the Ruger.
 
Last edited:
I have a 586 with a Charlton tuned trigger...it is super nice. Very accurate. Butter smooth and predictable double action and real crisp and light single action.

I havent ever shot a gp100, but anything I've read comes down to the trigger on a smith is better, tuned or not.
 
I have had a 686 or two at any one time, in the last 29 years. At present, only one 686-3 6" Sihouette model, which I got in almost new condition 16 yrs ago.

Reason I have only one 686 is because I discovered the GP100 10 years ago in the target range at the Edmonton Mall. After 25 .357 magnum rounds fired offhand from the longest distance at that indoor range, guessing 15 to 20 meters, all in the bull, back in Vancouver I bought a new one at Reliable Gun. It was the last piece they had with the rubber and rosewood insert. Mine can do 1 inch groups at 15 meters with reloads of 158 grain Speer JHPs over 14 grains 2400.

Both seem unbreakable so far, with a few thousand rounds each. They are fed mostly 38 +P+ reloads and the occasional .357mag. Both are still on their original springs. I don't believe in modding springs in any gun for reliability's sake. I'd rather practice and improve my trigger finger.
 
Not even a question imo, Smith hands down. Ruger needs to stick to making 10/22's, S&W's game is revolvers. Although overy the years qc has gone down with Smith so has every other firearm manufacturer, including Ruger.

This is a silly question, get a Smith, support S&W for continuing to build oldschool revolvers while all others gave up. The Ruger shouldn't even be in the same class as a Smith, it's ugly with a capital U. Belongs on the bottom shelf at Walmart.
 
When comparing thickness of metal, in regards to strength and longevity, you must include design, metal type and quality, and how that metal was treated or not treated as the case may be!
 
Liberty.357 said:
Not even a question imo, Smith hands down. Ruger needs to stick to making 10/22's, S&W's game is revolvers. Although overy the years qc has gone down with Smith so has every other firearm manufacturer, including Ruger.

This is a silly question, get a Smith, support S&W for continuing to build oldschool revolvers while all others gave up. The Ruger shouldn't even be in the same class as a Smith, it's ugly with a capital U. Belongs on the bottom shelf at Walmart.
Click to expand...
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as they say. Otherwise, how would you explain anyone owning a Glock.
 
easyrider604 said:
I have had a 686 or two at any one time, in the last 29 years. At present, only one 686-3 6" Sihouette model, which I got in almost new condition 16 yrs ago.

Reason I have only one 686 is because I discovered the GP100 10 years ago in the target range at the Edmonton Mall. After 25 .357 magnum rounds fired offhand from the longest distance at that indoor range, guessing 15 to 20 meters, all in the bull, back in Vancouver I bought a new one at Reliable Gun. It was the last piece they had with the rubber and rosewood insert. Mine can do 1 inch groups at 15 meters with reloads of 158 grain Speer JHPs over 14 grains 2400.

Both seem unbreakable so far, with a few thousand rounds each. They are fed mostly 38 +P+ reloads and the occasional .357mag. Both are still on their original springs. I don't believe in modding springs in any gun for reliability's sake. I'd rather practice and improve my trigger finger.
Click to expand...

This is my favourite post here so far. I think you're spot on about not replacing springs either, and just learning to shoot as-is instead.
 
Kosmonument said:
The Ruger is objectively tougher
Click to expand...

Kosmonument said:
I also didn't bring up 44, because that was irrelevant to the discussion
Click to expand...

If you are making an argument about the 'objective' toughness of a platform, chambering a more powerful cartridge in that platform is quite relevant.
Again I don't really care and i am not trying dissuade anyone from the GP - in fact the new 5" half lug with wood grips is on my radar - I just think there is a lot of internet BS about the relative strength of the GP over the L with no evidence (or only anecdotal statements based on erroneous comparisons to the K frame or the Redhawk and N frame) to back it up.
 
I was in the market for a revolver and shot both the GP100 and the 686 a handful of times and didn't have a strong preference either way. When Tenda had their Boxing Day sale and the 6" 686 was $799 I let my wallet decide.
 
gdawg said:
If you are making an argument about the 'objective' toughness of a platform, chambering a more powerful cartridge in that platform is quite relevant.
Again I don't really care and i am not trying dissuade anyone from the GP - in fact the new 5" half lug with wood grips is on my radar - I just think there is a lot of internet BS about the relative strength of the GP over the L with no evidence (or only anecdotal statements based on erroneous comparisons to the K frame or the Redhawk and N frame) to back it up.
Click to expand...

100%, but people like simple ideas with simple conclusions. The strength of a given design has so many more variables than how much material is present; design, type of material, forged vs cast, treatment processes, etc. The list goes on. The only sure way to know which is truly more durable is to have access to millions of dollars in lab equipment, teams of engineers, and conduct destructive testing on a statistically significant number of samples.......sounds a lot like the operation of a large firearm manufacturer.

The whole argument is analogous to MIM. A few high profile failures resulted in MIM being “junk” according to many. Don’t blame the engineering and manufacturing failures, blame the process because it’s easier. Simple idea, simple conclusion.

Given how long the L-frame and GP have been in production, and the excellent track record of both, it’s a fair bet that most will outlast their owners.
 
I think S&W's reputation for durability was earned before the MIM era, back when all they used were high quality steel forgings and bar stock. The latest base 686s do not interest me, but Performance Center 686s are awesome, IMHO.

As for Ruger, I don't think they use MIM. They have always used high quality castings. Ruger have not "improved" their design by cheapening out on materials or manufacturing method. It is much easier for anyone to breakdown a GP100 without tools, than a 686. I would not be bothered with screws to remove the sideplate on a 686.

GP100 and 686 weigh about the same, but the modern design thinking on the GP makes it stronger and more desirable mechanically, to me. On the other hand, I'd rather look at and caress my pretty 686 with its finer fit, finish and classic design, than my chunky GP.
 
Last edited:
I’m glad you enjoy your GP but you’re missing the point. Stronger, which I certainly can’t measure, doesn’t matter, strong enough does. Both guns will last a very long time if properly maintained.

S&W does use MIM. Performance centre guns use MIM. Ruger also uses MIM. It’s the future and when done right is very durable.
 
easyrider604 said:
I think S&W's reputation for durability was earned before the MIM era, back when all they used were high quality steel forgings and bar stock. The latest base 686s do not interest me, but Performance Center 686s are awesome, IMHO.

As for Ruger, I don't think they use MIM. They have always used high quality castings. Ruger have not "improved" their design by cheapening out on materials or manufacturing method. It is much easier for anyone to breakdown a GP100 without tools, than a 686. I would not be bothered with screws to remove the sideplate on a 686.

GP100 and 686 weigh about the same, but the modern design thinking on the GP makes it stronger and more desirable mechanically, to me. On the other hand, I'd rather look at and caress my pretty 686 with its finer fit, finish and classic design, than my chunky GP.
Click to expand...

Yep. Though, I prefer to admire at a gun that's built to work rather than one that's built to be seen.
 
As for Ruger using MIM--it's for parts like the trigger and crane latch. The overall gun is still cast and still stronger than the S&W as a result. But like I said before, go buy what you want. It doesn't matter to me. Hell, I'd have one of each if I could and be happy with both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom