686 or GP100 4"

[b0lingball]

I love the lines on the Smith but when I handled the GP100, it just feels like a tank. I like the push button cylinder release on the Ruger and it's price is way lower compared to the 686. Which one would you guys choose for mainly a range gun and home protection. Thanks

[GM4spd]

Forget the Ruger you want to hold a revolver,not a bowling ball. The trigger on the 686 is far superior. Your welcome

[leman77]

GP100 stainless with 3 inch barrel is awesome. And cheaper than a smith with the ugly lock.

[LeadFarmer74]

I like my 686. I would buy again.

[stillwater562]

wait until a pre-lock 686 comes up for sale on here, with the original wood target grips then buy, to me a way superior handling revolver than the Ruger, the Ruger is a nice gun also for what it is there's just no comparison for quality-functionality...

[NPFreedom]

GP100 for hot loads. 686 looks better in my opinion. Both are excellent revolvers. I got the GP100 for an excellent price. Can't go wrong with either.

[timbo399]

The 686 is a great revolver. That being said I bought a 4" GP100 8 years ago as that is all my LGS had at the time and was just getting into shooting.

Ever since my gun collection has grown but my trusty GP100 always in range bag. Never have shot .38's out of it-- always .357 FMJ since not my HD gun and it handles even the hottest loads with ease-- it is built like a tank.

As far as trigger, I assume most people would say S&W 686 trigger a bit better, but honestly I just bought a 686 2 1/2"Performance Center S&W recently and the trigger in DA and SA aren't THAT much better than on my Ruger GP100!!

Everyone should own a GP100-- abuse it as much as you want and keeps on ticking. I think 4" is perfect compromise also as far as barrel length-- long enough for accurate shots but not too cumbersome/front heavy.

[Garv]

I have the 686+ and prefer the trigger and looks.

If I planned on living forever, I'd get the Ruger.

Calguns answer: Get both!

[TeddyBallgame]

GP100 stainless with 3 inch barrel is awesome. And cheaper than a smith with the ugly lock.

3" barrell, that's right, that's right...finally found someone who knows what he is talking about

seriously, i've never owned a S&W, so i can't compare triggers, but, i have a 3" GP100 and i can't say enough about it...probably wouldn't use it as a HD gun, but going into wooded areas i would definitely have it on my side for both 2 legged and 4 legged threats...fun range gun too...i like posting pictures of it

[81Degrees]

If you don't mind the lock I suggest the 686 plus. 7 rounds of goodness.

Though I'd add a pic of the only Ruger I own...

[supermario]

I have a stainless 3" Gp100 and I think the trigger is great. I keep hearing how great the Smiths are but everytime I dry fire one, I'm not impressed. I personally think the GP100 trigger feels better on my 3". Maybe because its broken in.

Plus the Smiths are overpriced in my opinion. Why should they cost more? Name? They are not built any better than a Ruger, their the same quality it seems.
Anyways, I think the 3" is best handling revolver. Its easy to shoot.

Some of the Smiths can hold more rounds and do look baddass though. I have a S&W 442 that I LOVE so I am not giving a biased opinion. Just think the Ruger fullsize revolvers are great and not overpriced. I bought the S&W 442 for the compact revolver because I think it feels way better than Rugers LCR line. And the 442 is priced better too.

[SonofWWIIDI]

Either.

Both are great revolvers.

[D.A.V.I.D.]

GP100 stainless with 3 inch barrel is awesome. And cheaper than a smith with the ugly lock.

Yeah since a hole on the side looks so much worse than READ INSTRUCTION MANUAL blasted down the side of it.

[Divehobo]

GP100 for the win

[hundreddollarman]

Ah, the Coke vs. Pepsi of the revolver world. I'm partial to Smiths myself; they're much nicer out of the box than a Ruger.