I'm considering getting myself a brand new full-size .357 revolver for Christmas. (4 or 6 inch). I would only use it for plinking at the range. There doesn't seem to be a big enough difference in price to matter to me. I'm not revolver knowledgeable so how about giving me a little education between these two? I've been told the Smith will be smoother, but the Ruger will last longer.

Either revolver will outlast you even with regular use. The Smith triggers seem a little more refined and for me, they are easier to work on and aftermarket support might be slightly better for the Smith. I have examples of both revolvers. Frankly, it's almost a coin toss.

Both are great guns. I don't have a 686, but I've shot a few. I do have a Model 66 4" and a GP100 4". I have a great love for S&W revolvers, but I have to admit that my GP100 is the better gun. It's smoother, more ergonomic, I shoot it better, and it is more robust (it will handle a steady diet of Magnum loads, while the K-Frame model 66 will not...not an issue with the L-Frame 686, though). The weight difference between the two is small enough to make no practical difference. The Smith is beautiful, pre-lock, and definitely worth more, but were I forced to keep only one it would be the GP100.

FWIW, I like the trigger group "module" design of the Rugers more than the sideplate of the S&W. It's not dependent on screws to hold things together and provides easier takedown. Both actions can be slicked up pretty easily.

GP100 was my first pistol purchase back in 1989 when I turned 21. Still have it.
I have one S&W and between the two, I couldn't pick which is better. Either would be a great pick.

I would love to have the PC's 686 Eight Times.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
I would love to have the PC's 686 Eight Times.

I would too.

But other than that one version I prefer the GP100, but I’ve got a thing for Ruger revolvers.

I bought a new 6-inch blued GP100 back in 1990 because it was significantly cheaper than a S&W 686. I stopped counting after I put 16,000 rounds (mostly full power cast lead bullets) through it, and it still appears to be nearly new (lockup is as tight as when I purchased it). I have a couple 686s that I bought used, and have only put 3-4 thousand rounds through each of them. They are still in excellent condition. The 686 revolvers are a little less bulky - the frames are forged, whereas Ruger used investment casting. Both of my 686 have smoother single and double action triggers than my Ruger (all are stock, without any work done to the triggers), but all are easily managed. I haven't weighed them, but believe the double action pulls on my Smiths are lighter. All three revolvers are accurate - I usually shoot slightly tighter groups with my GP100, but that may be because I've fired it so much over the past 32 years. I guess "Ford vs. Chevy" is a good analogy - either revolver would serve you well - it's hard to go wrong with two excellent, well proven designs!

You want the best of a 4” and a 6” and a six shot and an eight shot (almost) - Look at the S&W 686+ Pro Series pistol. 5” barrel and seven shots and being from S&W’s Pre-Series line you get a few extras like recessed cylinder for Moon-Clip loading….

https://www.smith-wesson.com/p...model-686?sku=178038

Duty carried a 686 for a number of years. Never an issue with it. I have a GP100 that is equally as good as the 686.
Main difference:
The S&W had a better trigger in both DA and SA. Ruger triggers are not quite as good. Try both and see which you prefer.

I have both a GP100 and a pre-lock 686. The S&W is definitely more “refined”, but there’s nothing wrong with the Ruger. It is built like a tank. You can get Wolff reduced power hammer springs to reduce the DA pull pretty nicely without affecting reliability. The swap out is easy.

It took only ten posts for someone to bring up the only Ruger claim to fame. "Built like a tank".

There are a few types of GP100 pistols to choose from between factory, Talo and Lipsey editions. Some have more options with grips, barrel type and better action/trigger feel. I have a standard 6" and it is a nice shooter. I have owned a 686+ and it was no slouch either.

On a side note, if you really want something a bit better than both, although a bit more pricey, the Python is much nicer than them both and holds it's value a bit better as well.

Can't go wrong with either. I've owned both and prefer the 686.

quote:

Originally posted by 21bubba:
It took only ten posts for someone to bring up the only Ruger claim to fame. "Built like a tank".

So is the 686. The 686 looks better IMO and has a touch better balance and is smoother and generally has a better trigger. Personally I'd buy the 686, but you'd be hard pressed to not be happy with either..........

Range fun, HD, target and plinking? Smith
Anything involving the 'field'? Ruger

....and I am a Smith kinda guy, but have both.

I think most of my thoughts on the subject have been covered, except this. Which one feels better in the hand, and shoots better for you?

quote:

Originally posted by 22940:
I've been told the Smith will be smoother, but the Ruger will last longer.

Are you going to be dialing up your own nuclear handloads? The Ruger is certainly a more modern and robust design, but if you're just going to be shooting regular factory .357 Mag. ammo, the difference between the two in durability will only be an academic matter.

The L-frame S&Ws never did much of anything for me and my old-school preferences -- nor, it should go without saying, does any S&W with the idiotic lock -- but if I were choosing between a 686 and a GP100, I would opt for the better trigger and superior overall refinement of the S&W. A GP100 is a very solid revolver, and they can be slicked up nicely and cheaply, but Ruger revolvers do even less for me than L-frame, lock-bearing S&Ws. They're just too clunky and crude looking for me, and there's really no contest between the stock triggers. I also find the 686 to balance a bit better. The GP100 only weighs a fraction of an ounce more than the 686 in a given barrel length, but more of the GP100's weight is concentrated forward of the grip, since the 686 has a full grip frame, while the GP100 has only a Super Redhawk-style grip "peg."

quote:

Originally posted by NavyEngineer:
The 686 revolvers are a little less bulky - the frames are forged, whereas Ruger used investment casting.

Clever S&W advertising notwithstanding, one thing doesn't have much of anything to do with the other.

quote:

Originally posted by austintx:

quote:

Originally posted by NavyEngineer:
The 686 revolvers are a little less bulky - the frames are forged, whereas Ruger used investment casting.

Clever S&W advertising notwithstanding, one thing doesn't have much of anything to do with the other.

Great! Now I have a craving for a burger at near midnight...

Ruger for me.

I believe that I told this once before under my old screenname, though maybe in less detail. Excuse any memory fuzziness about specific details; this did happen almost a decade ago.

Some time back our shop had received a case or possibly two of 158gr 38SPL target loads that turned out to be littered with overcharged cartridges, though at the time we didn't know that. A customer had at about the same time bought a S&W Performance Center 686 Plus (I think) from us and some of that ammo. A few days later he had come back claiming that we had sold him a defective gun, as his new S&W had grenaded itself from that 38SPL ammo. The cylinder had separated itself from the frame of the revolver and there was some evidence of cracking damage to the upper portion of the frame as well as damage to the crane, with visible scoring on the ejector plunger.

After we managed to get him to calm down some, we got him to described his experience and sort of figured out that it probably wasn't the gun that was at fault but more likely that the ammo that may have caused the failure. He did describe that there were "a couple" or so very hot rounds experienced from the box of 38s, and that it was after the last of these higher powered rounds that the gun went kaboom. By the time he had come back to the shop we had already sold about a 1/2 dozen or so boxes of this ammo, but after looking at the remnants of his S&W we decided that we'd better pull the ammo so no other customer would go through the same sort of experience.

Even so, at the time we had been suspecting that the customer had actually been shooting some hot reload 357s and that the factory 38SPL wasn't at fault at all, even though he swore that he had been shooting only a variety of factory ammo, including the 38SPL that he bought from us when he picked up the gun. About 1/4 to 1/3 of that box of 38s remained unused. Nevertheless we contacted S&W for him and arranged to have the gun returned for inspection and possible warranty repair or replacement.

From what I remember, we sent both the gun and the remaining ammo back to S&W. After some haggling S&W agreed to replace the revolver with a new one, though S&W like us suspected that overcharged reloads were the actual blame for the gun's failure as they didn't note any unusual experience with the remaining ammo (presuming that they either fired some of it or at least inspected the remainder for cartridges overpacked with powder). Meanwhile the suspect ammo that we pulled was left in our backroom, while we pensively waited for other customers' reports and complaints to filter back before contacting the ammo maker about possible defective cartridges.

Months passed and it turned out that no one else came back with any tales of "kablammo" woes. The incident became somewhat forgotten as did the ammo itself as it slowly became obscured and hidden away by other merchandise coming into the shop warehouse. I came across the ammo some time later and then remembered the S&W failure, but the shop manager decided that it was safe to put out to the floor, and so we did. However I decided to buy a box of those 38s and shoot them through my 3" GP100, just to see if there was really any truth the notion that the ammo really was at fault for the 686's failure.

Boy did I discover just how true that customer's story was. Shooting the ammo over at West Coast Armory, I and my GP300 experienced four severely overpressured cartridges spread randomly in that 50 round box. Each instance the gun kicked and had muzzle flip far harder than any 357MAG load that I've ever run through it, including hot bear loads. However at no time did I even consider stopping; likely not the wisest thing to have done but in my tepid defense I really was curious as to how many super hot rounds were in there and at the time it seemed like the Ruger was just lapping it all up with no signs of fuss or it being worse for wear.

Maybe it might've taken a FIFTH overcharged load to break my GP100, but I really doubt it. The whole 'built like a tank' mantra became instantly believable to me in that moment. I now had no doubts about the ability of my GP100 to stand up to stupidly overcharged ammunition, and the lack of endurance and durability that a similar S&W didn't have. End of discussion as far as I was concerned. No L-frame 357 for this revolver neophyte, no sirree.

But over the intervening years I've softened my view on the 686, to the point that I actually bought a 4" 6-Plus a few years ago...and I must say that I do like the gun quite a lot. But I'm pretty damn sure that if I still had any of that defective 38SPL ammo in my possession I would NOT choose to run it through the Smith. Frankly I wouldn't even put it through either my 3" GP100 again or its 5" sibling...but I do feel that either one could handle it and laugh at the Smith while doing it.

So for me: Ruger all day long and all night.