A) Big fan of the 686 seven shooter. S&Ws custom shop can do quite a job with the trigger.

B) No idea why someone would want the ability to shoot over pressure loads. That just leads to extra bulk and weight in a design.

I've got both; one 3" GP100 and several 686's. If buying new I would go with a GP100, if used a 686. I've been pleasantly surprised with my GP100, it's the 3" barreled 10mm version. Trigger is a little stiffer than the typical 686, but it is the easiest to stage trigger on a double action pull of almost any revolver that I own.

I despise the internal lock on the newer Smiths. There has also been a series of value engineering to the 686 over the years. The -5 version is the last of their revisions I'll purchase. It's got MIM parts, but at least it doesn't have the lock or any of the later engineering changes. The -4 versions are kind of the holy grail of the 686 production run. First generation to be manufactured on CNC machinery and last to have forged parts.

In short, an older 686 is going to be more refined, a little better balanced and have a better out of the box trigger pull. The Ruger will be heavier and has stayed more or less true to the original design.

The Ruger is a tank for sure!
The Smith is a surgical instrument...
There is nothing better than tuned S&W action.

As mentioned, either would likely be a winner. While I prefer S&W revolvers, personally (with my favorites being N-frames a’la the Model 27), the GP100 has always felt impressive to me. I thought the 3-inch Wiley Clapp edition Rugers looked and felt especially nice.

The overall question reminded me of this little print-advertisement “war” that was waged between the two companies back in the day haha…

It's pretty much just a personal decision. I've owned several examples of both, but prefer the S&W.

I’ve got both. 686+ pre lock and a couple Wiley Clapp GP100’s. I’ve shot the Gp the most and did some minor smoothing and springing. Not much and nothing drastic. The GP trigger has smoothed out over use to the point I wouldn’t do anything else to it.

As to designs, the Ruger wins hands down. Forget being stronger which it is. A side plate and 3 tiny screws is an ancient concept that works fine. The Ruger way is stronger simpler and you can’t bugger screws. The grip design is waaaay better. A simple post and you attach any size or shape grip you want. The Smith system is nowhere near as practical. The frame will always be the deciding factor at some point. If revolvers ever actually made a comeback the Ruger way would be the grip design of choice.

Now don’t get me wrong. I love Smiths. If I had to choose just one 357 though that 3 inch Ruger is almost perfect. I wish it had an adjustable rear instead of a Novak. You can change that though.

Ruger, but one of the “better” looking ones.

Smith.

I've had a 686 and I currently have a model 66 and they shoot so nice.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jhe888,

The 686 is a more refined design without excess bulk in the frame and cylinder. The trigger will be a bit smoother out-of-the-box and can be tuned to a higher level.

If you prefer the bulkier GP-100, at least get the Match Champion

quote:

Originally posted by 2000Z-71:
I've been pleasantly surprised with my GP100, it's the 3" barreled 10mm version. Trigger is a little stiffer than the typical 686, but it is the easiest to stage trigger on a double action pull of almost any revolver that I own.

Not sure if you are aware, but TK Customs makes moon clips specifically designed for the 10mm Rugers that are thicker than the Ruger moon clips for shooting .40 s&w. The manual says you can shoot them but there may be reliability issues due to the head spacing, but with the TK Custom clips I’ve never had an issue shooting .40 through mine.

Plinking at the range and box stock? S&W

I hate to interject reality into this discussion but somebody has to. The L frame which is a 686 was designed because the K frames wouldn't stand up to a heavy diet of magnums. We all know this. I might have missed some detail there but that is the gist.

This thread is about an L frame 686 and a GP100. To make the L frame stronger, it is bigger. Basically to the size of a GP100. Every single comment about the slimness of the 686 is bullshit. Now if we were talking about a Model 66 K frame then they would be true.

I just pulled out my 686 and a GP100. I took 4 measurements that seemed applicable to this topic. The Ruger is smaller in two dimension and in the other 2 the differences range from .020 to .022 hundreds of an inch bigger than the Smith. Pull out your micrometer like I did and tell me again how much thicker the Ruger is. They are basically identical in width for all practical purposes. For full disclosure the Smith was wider by .008 to .016 inches than the Ruger in the two categories it was bigger. Negligible both ways.

First number is the 686 then the GP100

Cylinder 1.563 vs 1.547 Ruger is smaller
Topstrap .658 vs .678 Smith wins
Frame at barrel .842 vs .836 Ruger wins barely
Frame at hammer/cylinder release .652 vs .674 Smith wins

All measurement by my Dillon Precision Dial Caliper.

Choose whichever gun you prefer but pretending that the 686 is slimmer is a fairy tale that a micrometer won't back up.

Agree there is no real size difference between the two. Further proof comes when buying most non-custom holsters. The makers labels will list the holster as fitting both guns.

And the Ruger GP100 with a 4.2” barrel is only 0.3oz heavier than the 686 with a 4.125” barrel.

Yup. The Smith “feels” slimmer because we all know S&W drinks tea with their pinkies extended and Ruger is barely past the caveman and rock stage. Lol

I love them both. First gun ever was a S&W 67. Still have that gun. I have a dozen-ish just like it. I love Smiths.

I hate the Hillary hole and Ruger is catching up/perhaps caught up in out of box trigger. If I had to pull one out for bear duty or self defense it would be an easy choice for me. Either my 8 shot S&W 627 Pro or my 3 inch Wiley Clapp GP100. So I guess I cheated and picked one of each.

Honestly in this size I would pick one of the better Ruger GP’s like the WC or the Match Champion. If I wanted a Smith I would up my game to the N frames. The 627 Pro with 8 shots is really hard to beat. Great sights with the easy to remove front sight plunger, cut for moonclips, it does have a hole but I pulled that shit and plugged it, lots of grip choices. And 8 shots.

This has really been an interesting thread. Thanks for all the input. I'm really enjoying this.

I tend to lean towards the 686, I’ve still got a no dash than hasn’t been sent in for the upgrade that I bought new shortly after they came out. The Gp100 used to be a bargain when you could buy them for 6 bills 2 years ago, I do have a gp100 and while I enjoy it, I favor the 686, just sits in my hand better, grip angle on the Rugers seems off to me, I’ve never really done any research into it but for me S&W and Colts just feel much better. I’ve got a newer King Cobra 3” that is fast becoming my favorite revolver carry and shooter

Like as has already been said, new for me would be the Ruger.

Older model would be the S&W.

I do not nor ever had a 686 but I love my 3 model 19's and 3 model 27's.

I don’t know if this will help you but I replace all my GP grips with the compact grips. Look exactly the same but like 3/4 scale. Maybe that would help. I don’t like the stock grip they come with.

^^^ Ditto. Made for a much better hand fit for me.

They are both good guns. I had a S&W 625 and hated how the cylinder release lever was.

I have 2 GP100's and have gotten spoiled by the cylinder release. I also love the looks of both, but I'm a Ruger guy.