I've been a smith guy all my life.....had the gp100 years ago and sold it within a week I absolutely could not get use to the cylinder release it was so weird get use to......not to mention that I was.shooting some real nasty dirty reloads thru it....the tolerances were to tight and there was several times the cylinder got jammed up and would not open easily....that was enough for me....never will I buy another ruger revolver again
S&W 686 vs Ruger GP100 vs ?
- Thread starter Scotty454
- Start date
Nice picture by the way I seriously had to double take on that pic as I have the exact same tile backslash and very similar counter tops and sa me 686 but different grips....I thought u were in my house going thru my safe lol.......love the shiny look.....what did you use to make it shine like that?
I've seen that same issue with a couple of local Rugers in matches. It seems to be related to getting unburnt powder granules between the ejector star and the cylinder. One guy just swore a lot and the other had a cleaning brush he used at regular periods through the day. Another guy wasn't tipping up the barrel enough and after I mentioned seeing the other two with this issue had no further troubles because he switched to a strongly barrel up angle once the cylinder was out of the frame. That helped him a lot to get through the day.
On average, my 4 Smiths are superior to my 3 Rugers, but you win by having more. To be fair, I like them all and they are all good guns.
I just went to the range with my 19-3, 66-2, GP100 and Blackhawk. In S/A I couldn't tell the difference between any of them in trigger pull. All of them were accurate. I have two S&W L frames as well. If you get a good one the older Smiths are good guns. The K frames are a little light for .357Mag. The nicest revolver I own might be the 19-3, it is a thing of beauty.
winchesterjones
Regular
- Location
- Sharon Ont
I've owned both and both are nice heavy guns, however if you do look for a GP look for an earlier production one. In my opinion it felt much better made.
Let us not forget Rugers are kit guns to be sure. The purchaser is asked to complete the finishing of the guns. Reaming the cylinder throats out to where they should be and opening the forcing cone to 11 degrees are two common remedies.
Take Care
Bob
Appreciate the advise, although I never buy anything without checking prices at at least a few sources. Will not be paying more for used than new, unless there's a real good reason for it (Extras, etc).
If i were to go with the S&W (I'm kind of leaning that way), I'd definitely skip the K frame and go with the L frame. Even though they've supposedly beefed up the K frame to be able to shoot full power .375mag all day long (Hickok45 told me so, haha), I still like the looks of the L frame better.
Turkinator
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Onterrible
If a GP100 was a few hundred dollars cheaper brand new than a Smith like they used to be, there would something to consider but they're not anymore. I like the shape of the GP100 and will own own one in addition to my 686 some day but there is no way I'm paying S&W prices for it. IMO a 686 much more refined and is worth every penny.
Also don't give durability a consideration to either. The smith is sleek because it is hammer forged while the GP is investment cast and needs to be beefier because of this. Both revolvers will last you until the end of time. The smith vs ruger magnum durability argument applies to the S&W model 29/629 vs the Ruger Redhawk only.
Also don't give durability a consideration to either. The smith is sleek because it is hammer forged while the GP is investment cast and needs to be beefier because of this. Both revolvers will last you until the end of time. The smith vs ruger magnum durability argument applies to the S&W model 29/629 vs the Ruger Redhawk only.
Last edited:
Well... I had a chance to handle both the 686 and the GP-100 at TSE this weekend. I was previously all but sold on the S&W, but dammit... I liked the look and the fit/finish of the Ruger better. Being a machinist, I often look at things from a different perspective than some, and the Ruger appealed to me more than the Smith. The trigger and the hammer specifically were much nicer on the Ruger. The Smith looked cheap in those areas, whereas the Ruger looked much more solid. Kind of like cast vs machined from billet.
Lol back to square one I s'pose.
Lol back to square one I s'pose.
Having two GP100 and a friends 686 in my hands hours ago, the only thing I like more about S&W is the hammer lock time. From sear disengagement to hammer strike all smith and wessons win hands down. It is a tighter package due to the geometry of the trigger/hammer sear. No amount of spring/trigger work will change this.
I have done a stoning on my GP100 and the trigger is as good as any smith I've used. But the hammer lock time is so obviously superior on the smith.
They are two different beats. love my GP100s to death and would never get rid of. Excellent revolvers across the board.
But if a GP100 could sneak off in the middle of the night and have a night of hanky panky with the s&w farmers daughter and created a love child a superior revolver could be had.
I have done a stoning on my GP100 and the trigger is as good as any smith I've used. But the hammer lock time is so obviously superior on the smith.
They are two different beats. love my GP100s to death and would never get rid of. Excellent revolvers across the board.
But if a GP100 could sneak off in the middle of the night and have a night of hanky panky with the s&w farmers daughter and created a love child a superior revolver could be had.
