Ruger gp100 vs smith and wesson 686

B

Burglecut83

BANNED
BANNED
BANNED
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
In your experience what are the pros and cone of each of these. Probably will buy one or the other as Xmas gift to myself this year based on feedback here. Thanks
 
was just looking at both of these online lol, I have not shot any of them but I read some reviews and they say the S&W has a better trigger. I do like the look of the ruger more though. Interested to hear from actual owners and users.
 
The Ruger is built like a tank, but has a heavier and some say grittier trigger.
S&W 686 not built like a tank, but a solid little revolver none the less, with a fairly smooth and crisp trigger (at least mine has anyways).
The 686 is much easier to find than a Ruger right now.
Both are very accurate revolvers, both are available in a Canadian 4.2" model.

And yes I own a GP100 6" and a 686 4.2".

You can't really go wrong with either one.
 
The Ruger, I prefer the look of it and there are more option for fiber optic sight sets (front and rear).

Really my only gripe with the Ruger is the stainless finish, it has a matte or satin finish. Which is great until you get a little scuff or scratch on it. On a polished gun it's not problem, take a little metal polish a buff out the mark. But on the Ruger if you do that you end up with a shiny spot.
 
I have had a Ruger GP100 on order for well over a year now, when I could have bought the 686 prior. S&W used to be known for quality, however that has slipped over the last 20 years :( Which is why I am going for the Ruger :)
 
Not sure about the S/W 686 , but I have a GP 100 with a 6 inch barrel , a great wheel gun , and like all Rugers , it is over engineered and a very rugged firearm......I would never give mine up....
 
I would not be too swayed by the ruggedness comparison. With 44s (29/629 v redhawk or superredhawk) no question the ruger is stronger. for the 357s, the 686 L frame is more than strong enough to handle a steady diet of full magnum loads and I think it has a nicer trigger. In the end they are both great guns so get the one the feels or looks better to you. I have a 6" 686 and it is a nice revolver.
 
I've shot both and I agree s&w has better trigger. Also easier to find at moment. But I still like ruger because they are built to fire 357 mags all the time unlike s&w which was not constructed for constant 357 usage. Either way I'm sure you will be happy with. Whatever now you pick. Have fun shopping around hope you find what you are looking for.
 
I had purchased a 6" 686 twenty years ago, sold it a few years back, and was lucky to find a GP100 earlier this year. The 686 was more refined, however, I do like the GP100 better.
 
In the US where handgun hunting is legal in many areas, folks prefer the ruger because its built like a tank and is supposed to handle the hottest loads. (Something to do with no shoulders in the design, one piece forged...someone correct my terminology if I'm incorrect)

The S&W is apparently a more "finely" put together handgun, meaning tighter tolerances, smoother trigger, and will hold its value better upon resale.

As with all handgun purchases, go to your LGS, hold both the guns and see which one fits better in your hand.

And, on a completely subjective side-note, for some reason the Ruger just looks better to my eye...
 
I own both (6" S&W & 4.2" Ruger). At least with my two guns (both purchased new) there is no comparison in triggers - the S&W is miles ahead in both SA and DA. You can get trigger kits for both guns which will help but I'm talking stock guns here. The Ruger is undoubtedly well built but don't fall for the hype that the S&W is somehow fragile. The L framed Smiths will easily digest a diet of 357s with no adverse effects. Of course these advantages aren't free. The S&W runs at least $100-150 more so the extra refinement comes at a cost. That being said I still like the feel of the Ruger (maybe it's the Hogue grips vs. the Pachmayrs on the S&W) and I wouldn't part with either one. YMMV.
 
If you have a chance to actually handle both I suggest that, depending on the size of your hand, you may find one feels better and allows you reach the trigger easier than the other. The L frame was born for this reason, it is basically a K size grip mated to a N size frame. As far as quality and ruggedness, they're both very solid firearms, as others have noted Ruger tends to be over built.

Tb
 
url
 
I own and shoot both of these guns. They both work well. Don't buy into the stories that the S&W is not as strong, that story comes from the K frame guns and the 686 is the stronger L frame gun made to shoot 357 magnum.

The S&W costs more and right now is way easier to get used or new. The smith has always been worth more and there are reasons for that.

Try them both if you can and get the one you like the best. Either one is a very good gun and you won't be upset whichever way you go. My 2 cents on this matter is buy the S&W.

Graydog
 
Can't really go wrong with either. I have a close friend with a GP100 and I own a 686, both in the 4.2. I highly doubt you will experience any strength/reliability issues with either. I personally think the smith is a little more refined... nicer finishing and trigger, while the gp100 is a little more utilitarian.
 
The Ruger is indestructible, but the S&W has a nicer factory trigger and finish. You can always put in a spring kit on the Ruger, but it won't be as good as the 686.

They're both great revolvers though, it's hard to pick. I was deciding between the two and ended up with a 686 simply because it's the one I found at the price I wanted.
 
I don't own a 686 but I do own a 6" gp100 and I love it. As others have said it's built like a tank and I really enjoy shooting it. I prefer it to my dad's model 29 44 mag. It just handles better for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom