GP100 VS 686

[Old Flash]

I've owned both and shot both for long time. I sold the Ruger since my S&W was more accurate and had a better trigger. Probably just me so take it for what its worth - 2 cents.

[BradleyAbrams]

I have a 686 that had an issue with the cylinder not opening. I guess the answer is get a colt.

I had a 1986 made 586 ( 4") that had a similar issue. Could not trust it.

Sold it, got the new GP100 ( 6"), Blued.

Got the wolff hammer spring kit for the Ruger (9lbs ) Works great DA. Real smooth.

The blue finish on the S&W was a bit better, but the GP just feels more solid.

IMHO, Get the GP100

.

[schneiderguy]

In my experience current production Rugers are much better than current production S&Ws. 2/3 of the new S&Ws I bought in the past decade had timing issues right out of the box, they have the ugly internal lock, and the triggers aren't that great anymore either. I've had both a 686 and GP100 and only the GP100 remains.

[Cowboy T]

I've also spent quality time with both revolvers.

The S&W 686 is like a Swiss timepiece. It feels precise when firing it. Its looks are svelte.

The Ruger GP100 is like a Timex watch that did a cycle or two of steroids. It's big, burly, strong, and "takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'."

They are two different approaches to the same ultimate goal. Neither one of them is inherently "wrong", and both are fine revolvers in their own respective styles. Either one will readily handle a steady diet of full-house .357M loads, though the GP100, in fine Ruger fashion, is rather a bit more "overbuilt" for the task.

The really right answer to the question of, "which one?" is to try both out on the range. Run a box of fifty .357M rounds through each one and see which you like. Then, buy that one.

[denpython]

Compare the sight picture between the two.
It is an important factor among others.

[Vinnie Boombatz]

I am a newb as far as revolvers go, but just yesterday picked up my 4" 686 and love it.

I picked this revolver up for no other reason though than I've never owned a revolver and wanted one and this will just be a fun gun/range gun.

Next revolver will probably be something in .44 mag.

I just thought the 686 has a classic, timeless look. Rugers look great, but something about the 686 just spoke to me.

[TheFlash]

Have an older 686 4"bbl and a newer 686 Plus with a 4"bbl.
I've owned some Ruger DA/SA revolvers, but sold them all.
Much prefer the S&W's for accuracy, fit, finish, trigger pull (DA & SA) and more. Others' experiences may vary for the S&W and Ruger DA/SA revolvers.

The only Ruger revolvers that I still have (and LOVE) are my Ruger Vaqueros - in 45LC.

[Capybara]

Pretty close in comparison. I would say the S&W is a touch more elegant while the Ruger is a bit more rugged. Either is a superb choice for a workhorse .357.

As for the "only get a pre-lock S&W" silliness, ignore it. The only reports of failure due to the lock always start with, "My friend this happen to him..." I've run a 686SSR in competition for several years. Thousands of rounds driven hard through the gun and not even a hiccup of any kind, let alone due to the lock.

As much as I think it is hideously ugly, none of my three S&Ws with the stupid Hillary hole have ever given me a lick of trouble so take that for what's worth. On a carry gun, might give me a tiny pause but on a range gun, not an issue at all.

[k1dude]

IMHO, the 686 looks nicer than the 100. But that's purely personal preference.

[M76]

Pretty close in comparison. I would say the S&W is a touch more elegant while the Ruger is a bit more rugged. Either is a superb choice for a workhorse .357.

As for the "only get a pre-lock S&W" silliness, ignore it. The only reports of failure due to the lock always start with, "My friend this happen to him..." I've run a 686SSR in competition for several years. Thousands of rounds driven hard through the gun and not even a hiccup of any kind, let alone due to the lock.

not exactly worried about failure, purely aesthetics and principle;

the hillary-hole is horrendous

[FNGGlock]

Have you considered a S&W 27?
May be harder to get though.

[ar15barrels]

So looking at purchasing one of these.
6", 6 shot, SS
Leaning towards the GP since I'm a ruger fan.
However the 686 is a beautiful revolver and seems to handle well.
Will be used mostly with medium cast loads but maybe heavy loads for hunting as well
Recommendations ?

S&W is absolutely the nicer gun.
Ruger is heavier and clunkier action but regarded as stronger.
If most of your shooting is medium cast loads and only a couple boxes a year of hunting loads, the S&W will be fine.
If the majority of your shooting was going to be bone-shakingly hot loads, then the ruger would get my nod.

I have both S&W's and Rugers but always grab an S&W as my first choice for plinking with target loads but I always wear a Ruger with hot loads as my bear protection sidearm.

A 357 is no bear gun so realistically you are going to want two different guns to do what you are looking for.
A 38 special S&W for target shooting and a Ruger 41mag, 44mag, 454 or 480 for hunting.

[Sutcliffe]

More or less

Chevy vs Ford

[broadside]

I have a S&W 6" 686 with power port and a GP100 4" black. The GP100 needed some trigger and spring work but it was cheap and easy to do.

The GP100 has a really nice trigger now, better than the S&W I think.

[Calisnaps]

I shot both in .357 before buying the 686+, the trigger on the S&W just felt better to me.