I recently purchased the 686 + in 6 inch, and used to own the Ruger GP100. The S&W grip for some reason fits me better. The trigger pull I have to admit is lighter on the 686. I really liked the GP, but I love the 686. Can't go wrong with either.
-
If you are having trouble changng your password please click here for help.
GP100 or 686...
- Thread starter 1jcwallace
- Start date
Both are great guns... it really depends on what you are going to do with it.
If you are going to put a lot of Magnum loads through it, the Ruger is a better bet, since it's a lot beefier than the Smith.
If you want a good target gun and are sticking mainly with 38, the Smith is probably the way to go.
If you are going to put a lot of Magnum loads through it, the Ruger is a better bet, since it's a lot beefier than the Smith.
If you want a good target gun and are sticking mainly with 38, the Smith is probably the way to go.
As many have already said, both are great revolvers. My favorite is the GP100.
Both are awesome. I don't necessarily agree that the GP100 is significantly beefier than the 686, though. The GP100 trigger is much more crude than the 686, but with some new springs and an hour's worth of polishing the internals, it can be a VERY nice shooter. Personally, I'd go by price. If you can find a GP for $400-450, jump on it. If you're looking at one that's $500+, I'd spend another $100-150 and buy a 686. As previously stated above, I agree with going with an older model over a newer one. Revolvers only get better with age!
If you do some MEASURING, you will find that the GP-100's Frame is indeed a lil' "Beefier" than the 686's--But that does not tell the WHOLE STORY--The Ruger's Frame is INVESTMENT CAST, while the S&W's is FORGED--Me personally, I'll go with the FORGED Frame, thankyouverymuch! HTH....mikey357
nether, grab a old security six! built to outlast any shooter. the .357 ruger should have never stopped, other than that if i had the cash i'd go with this all day long http://www.theoutdoorstrader.com/threads/fs-as-low-as-youre-going-to-find-it.869010/page-2
A forged part isn't inherently any stronger than a casting. It all depends on the process used and the QC around it. Take a look at some of the approved guns for hot loadings from certain ammo companies and you will find the GP-100 listed in the approved category for every single one of them. The 686's... not as much.
You know better than I do that the 686 is a K-frame gun. These have a known issue concerning forcing cone damage when shooting a lot of the more common 357 Magnum loads. This is inherent in all the K-frames except those just recently re-introduced, which of course have the lock.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Smiths are bad guns, they are just built for a different purpose, and that didn't include a steady diet of full-on magnum loadings.
That doesn't keep me from loving my 80's-era 586, or my 686+ Talo. They are just different than my Security Sixes and my GP-100.
Last edited:
Really can't go wrong with either.
686 Performance Center:
GP100 WC:
686 Performance Center:
GP100 WC:
Spencer60, you are correct about some of the hottest loads and the Ruger can handle them. However, the M686 is not a K frame. It is an L frame. It was designed and produced because of the problems you mentioned with the K frame. The L frame Smiths are a huge improvement over the K frame, when it comes to shooting .357's all day every day. The K frame was never designed to shoot .357's all the time. It was produced to be lighter and easier to carry than the N frame. If a K frame is shot, as it was intended to be shot, there are few problems, but full load .357s, shot all day, every day, can damage the forcing cone. The L frame does not share that inherent problem with .357 rounds.
