Despite Ruger's claims, the 686 is an extraordinary revolver. I've owned the GP100 as well and currently a Korth and a Jantz. My Smiths (with tune ups) are far closer to the Korth than the GP100 is to the Smith. Sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by 22940:
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.

In the long run, you would probably be happier with the 686.

Just remember with long barrels, these are heavy revolvers.

Either revolver will last a life time of shooting full power 357 Magnum ammunition

quote:

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

There are no 8 shot Model 686s. The 686+ is a seven shot

The 8 Times Smith & Wesson revolvers are the models 27/327/627





Just because something is thicker does not mean it is stronger . . . unless the two items are made of the exact same material.

Rugers are not made of the same grade of stainless as Smith & Wessons, so just comparing thickness is meaningless

Additionally Rugers are investment cast while Smith & Wessons are forged, how things are made is another factor in strength

quote:

Originally posted by colt_saa:
There are no 8 shot Model 686s. The 686+ is a seven shot.

Some are also six shot.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
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.

I suspect the measurements have changed over the years - as you can visibly see, the topstrap in my 1990 blued GP100 (0.947 inches) is thicker than that on my 1988 686 CS-1 2M (0.800 inch), which provides some evidence for the competing claims in the period ads posted in this thread. Of course, I have no idea what the specific properties of the two different materials are. I like both models, but the heavy barrel profile of my GP100 makes it feel significantly different (much heavier in the muzzle) compared to all of my S&W 357s, which have lighter profile barrels and more weight in the grip frame. Even my 6-inch N-frame S&W 28-2 Highway Patrolman is only an ounce heavier than my 6-inch GP100, and much less muzzle heavy. The average of 5 trigger pulls produced the following results on my Lyman digital scale: S&W 686 CS-1 DA: 7lbs,11oz SA: 2lbs,3oz Ruger GP100 DA:10lbs,10oz SA:3lbs,15oz 2021 Colt Python DA:8lbs,8oz SA:4lbs, 11oz The Colt only has a few hundred rounds through it, so the trigger weight might eventually decrease slightly. I don't think the OP could go wrong with any of these fine revolvers![/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

quote:

Originally posted by Mustang-PaPa:

quote:

Originally posted by colt_saa:
There are no 8 shot Model 686s. The 686+ is a seven shot.

Some are also six shot.

No,
The 6 shot, 357 Magnum, L-Frame revolvers were called the Model 686

All of the Model 686+ revolvers left the Factory as 7 shots, unless there was a manufacturing error.

Your right i missed the “+” for some reason.

The gp100 cleans up very easily. lots of aftermarket stuff. if you do the action work yourself and buy a triggershims.com kit, you can do everything yourself and have a very smooth and accurate shooter. The tuned gp100 is probably the most comfortable shooting magnum revolver ever made. Nicer shooter than S&W imho. Maybe not for carrying for bulk and weight compared to the S&W, but a better shooter with some work.

Navy guy, I measured the width of the top strap. Side to side not top to bottom. As for your other comment it’s a fucking full lugged 6 inch barrel of course it’s heavy. You don’t have to buy a GP100 with a full lug barrel if you don’t like front heavy guns.

They are essentially the same size and another guy posted that with a slightly longer barrel the Ruger is 3/10’s of an oz heavier. Every else is blather if you keep saying how big they are. They SEEM bigger, the actual measurements don’t lie.

As for age of guns, my 686 is pre lock so it ain’t no spring chicken. I’ve had it since I was in my early 20’s so about 3 decades ago. The Ruger is newer. Whenever the WC first came out.

I love both revolvers but I hate people repeating things that aren’t true. The guns are basically IDENTICAL in dimension and weight if you compare models with similar characteristics. Measure them yourself and correct my data. Good luck with that.

Shoot them both if you can, then make the decision. They're both nice revolvers, but Ruger D/A revolvers are ugly, IMO.

Can't imagine selling my 4" stainless GP100.

I have had a Ruger GP 100 6” stainless forever……. The Ruger has been with me on more wild hog hunts, rained on,left bloody and dirty. It will NEVER BE SOLD. It’s just a great revolver!

quote:

Originally posted by sodacan:
Shoot them both if you can, then make the decision. They're both nice revolvers, but Ruger D/A revolvers are ugly, IMO.

This is the best advice. Shoot them both. Pick the one that you enjoy more.

Both are excellent revolvers but if I could only have one, I'd take the Smith. .

Stop this debate, buy both and tell us what YOU think.

The man does have a point. lol

quote:

Originally posted by ACP1:
Stop this debate, buy both and tell us what YOU think.

Yeah, listen to this guy. He's got the right answer!

quote:

Originally posted by colt_saa:
Just because something is thicker does not mean it is stronger . . . unless the two items are made of the exact same material.

Rugers are not made of the same grade of stainless as Smith & Wessons, so just comparing thickness is meaningless

Additionally Rugers are investment cast while Smith & Wessons are forged, how things are made is another factor in strength

It's always amusing to me how so many S&W diehards will twist themselves in knots not to acknowledge that Rugers are stronger designs. It's no problem for me -- pre-model number S&W revolvers are some of my favorite guns on the planet, and there's not a single Ruger revolver that appeals to me at all -- but some S&W fans just can't do it.

S&W is not using any special steel alloy superior to what Ruger uses. If anything, it's the opposite. S&W doesn't even use AISI 4140 for its carbon steel revolvers; it uses 4130, which is perfectly fine, but not as strong as the 4140 that Ruger uses. For stainless, S&W uses Type 416 for frames, cylinders, and barrels, and Ruger uses Type 415, which has both somewhat higher fatigue strength and tensile strength than Type 416, for all major components of its stainless revolvers (other than the .454 and .480 SRH).

The difference in strength between a high-quality forging and a high-quality investment casting these days is pretty small, and the much more robust design of the GP100 versus that of the 586/686 -- not to mention stronger alloy selection -- more than offsets this small difference. There's really no comparison in strength between the design with integral, non-removable "side plates" and the similarly sized design with a large, fully removable, screwed-in side plate when the materials are the same, much less when the former design makes use of a somewhat stronger alloy than the latter. The GP100's yoke/crane design is also much stronger than the 586/686's. And there's the GP100's significantly thicker and stronger top strap as well. Oh, and let's not forget the offset bolt notches of the GP100 versus the notches over the weakest part of the chamber on a six-shot 586/686. And so on.

S&W revolvers use a 126-year-old design made for the far weaker cartridges of that era. It's been pretty well "patched up" in succeeding decades in various ways (size, alloy selection, heat treatment) in order to accommodate vastly more powerful rounds than what existed when the design debuted in 1896, but it still has obvious shortcomings relative to a modern design drawn up years after the big magnum cartridges came into existence and created specifically to handle a steady diet of those powerful rounds. The only way around this would be for S&W to use high-strength alloys considered exotic for the manufacture of major firearms components (as with Ratzeburg Korths and Manurhin MR73s). Of course, if S&W had gone that route at some point, then they wouldn't be S&W as we know them. They'd be a very small, boutique manufacturer producing revolvers costing several times what S&Ws cost.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: austintx, August 31, 2022 08:28 PM

Save up and buy them both!


Some great comments here.

A 686 is easier to 'tune' than a GP100, as it seems most S&W revolvers I've had in my hands just needed a Wolff mainspring and a bit lighter trigger return spring for me to find them awesome.

The GP100 required both springs to be replaced, but also required more polishing of internal parts and fine-tuning of the sear/hammer interface.


For plinking [and thinking about older eyes], you won't go wrong with whichever you decide on.


If I could ONLY have one .357 DA/SA revolver, it would be the Ruger 4.2" GP100.

If I could only have one .357 revolver of ANY configuration, I might just go with the Blackhawk Convertible: .357/.38 from one cylinder and 9mm from the other. [no, the 9mm is nowhere near as accurate as the .38/.357, but it is fun and cheap.]


If I were to try using it for true precision work, I might go with S&W's options- but that is also factoring in that the S&W would be using wadcutters in .38special most of the time.


BTW, go to the Ruger boards and do some research. There is an undercurrent of info that argues that the GP100 is best used with jacketed bullets, as the forcing cone is designed around that type of round- for hunting or self defense. I know there are gunsmiths who provide a modification to this area to increase accuracy with lead rounds.

I am not sure about the S&W forcing cone area.

I will say that, for me, I can't feel a difference in lead or jacketed in the GP100.

and no, I don't notice a difference in the S&Ws either.

At least, not after cleaning the forcing cone with the Lewis Lead Remover to regain accuracy!


Oh, for those who don't like the lock above the cylinder latch, Tromix makes a replacement latch that can be fitted to the S&W and covers it.

Sidebar - I like that replacement latch shown above. I have only one S&W currently that features the lock; may have to check those latches out for it.

I know folks that have and love the GP100,

I have had a 586 and stupidly sold it,

now have an older 686, Silhouette model
6 inch barrel, 6 shot, 4 position front sight

love that revolver,

Chevy or Ford? The both do the job well.