GP100 VS 686

[neouser]

I have never had a 686, but the GP100 turned me off to revolvers. The main problem I had was the very long and heavy double action pull. I've been told that my experience would have been different if I had started with a Smith and Wesson. Supposedly, they have a shorter travel on the double action trigger due to the 7 round cylinder. I see the logic behind that, but also tend to question the reality of it since there's also the issue of hammer travel.

Obviously, custom work to the trigger will be a game changer and your experience may be different than mine.

[broadside]

I have never had a 686, but the GP100 turned me off to revolvers. The main problem I had was the very long and heavy double action pull. I've been told that my experience would have been different if I had started with a Smith and Wesson. Supposedly, they have a shorter travel on the double action trigger due to the 7 round cylinder. I see the logic behind that, but also tend to question the reality of it since there's also the issue of hammer travel.

Obviously, custom work to the trigger will be a game changer and your experience may be different than mine.

This is why I spent a 20 bucks on a spring kit and some 1000 grit paper and an hour doing some work. Its so nice now. Sure it would be nice if it was that way out of the box, but not a bunch of effort

[neouser]

This is why I spent a 20 bucks on a spring kit and some 1000 grit paper and an hour doing some work. Its so nice now. Sure it would be nice if it was that way out of the box, but not a bunch of effort

Does it shorten the length of the trigger travel? I think that's what annoyed me the most. More than the weight.

[SouthlandMan]

I have both, and while the two guns in 4 inches are the same weight, the same size, and a holster for one will likely fit the other, there are significant design differences.

The Ruger has a more modern design, no sideplates, one solid frame, the trigger / hand assembly comes out as one unit. It locks up at the back of the cylinder, the stop, and the front of the crane/yoke. The Smith locks up at the back, the stop and the front of the ejector.

The Smith ejector lockup is less secure than the Ruger. The ejector can unscrew itself and lock up the gun, the Ruger cannot as it does not unscrew. The front screw on the sideplate at the front, if unscrewed will allow you to slide off the cylinder/yoke assembly easily. The cylinder can then be disassembled further to get every bit of the burn ring off if that's your thing -- on the Ruger its much more complicated and you need a special Brownells tool to disassemble the cylinder assembly to get burn rings off every bit. As you can imagine, you need to keep on top of that screw for the Smith so you don't have your cylinder coming out when you are firing etc. The lightest locktite or clear fingernail poilsh will likely do the trick. I'd just check the Ejector rod, not fool with anything there.

The Ruger can't be fine tuned as much with hammer pull as the main spring is a coil thought it is easy to replace with different weights from companies like Wolf. The Smith has a leaf spring which can be lightened or increased by the strain screw in the grip which yes you guessed it, can come loose and cause light primer strikes. Fingernail polish is likely a good solution there. Nothing too aggressive but you want to keep that from easily backing out.

The Ruger has a screw on the cylinder release button (its on the bottom) that likes to back out. The Adjustable rear sight for those that have it is held in by a roll pin that can back out though later models are not supposed to have that issue (oversized crush fit roll pins). Some complain the Ruger can loose zero quickly with the adjustable sights as the Smith method for adjustable sights is more secure (screwed in at the top not roll pins).

The Ruger in the 4 and 6 inch regular models, and the 10mm Match Champion only have quick, user swappable front sights that require at most a small screwdriver or part of a pen to push in a spring and within seconds swap out the front sight. If you run fiber optics (they tend not to last) on your front sight this is a godsend. The Smith has a pinned in front sight, not IMHO user changeable for most users. The red ramp front sight is good though. The Ruger regular models come with a black sight, but like I said easily swappable for fiber optic.

The trigger reach for me seems shorter for the Ruger. About an eighth of an inch. The trigger is rougher in the Ruger and stacks at the end but is ridiculously easy to stage. The Smith is harder for me to stage. The Smiths in 3 inches have adjustable rear sights and the Ruger does not. The 686+ has no issues with ammo binding while the Ruger 7 shot models have been reported to have this issue. I personally do not own a Ruger 7 shot model.

The Ruger frame is cast, appears beefier but it is basically the same strength as the Smith which is forged. The design of the GP-100 carries over from the Single Six which was an evolution by famed designer Harry Seyfried of the High Standard revolvers. Its more modern than the basic design of sideplate and non-modular assemblies of the Smith basically unchanged from the Hand Ejector days save losing the lockup at the front of the crane. The Ruger has a very slightly shorter cylinder, limiting bullet length but increasing speed/accuracy.

BOTH Ruger and Smith ship canted barrels and other issues so inspect carefully before buying. Both have been used in movies and TV if that's your thing, the blued Ruger GP 100 in 4 inch was used by Chow Yun Fat in Hardboiled, and the stainless by Snake Plissken himself, Kurt Russell in Tango and Cash. Which is a true classic and features a young Teri Hatcher IIRC.

"The Lock" -- I have had ONE recent Smith 686 4 inch lock up on me. It had to be sent back to Smith for this and other issues: canted barrel (I did not spot it on inspection stupidly), timing issues (spitting lead) and the lock-up (required the key to fully lock then unlock it -- could not pull trigger or release the cylinder otherwise). Smith replaced the hand, the yoke, the barrel. They had it back _pre Covid in about a month plus.

Smith has a lifetime warranty and good customer service. Ruger has a very good warranty (not lifetime) and good customer service. Smith's lifetime warranty will not cover out of production guns like the famed Third Gen autos such as the 3913 etc. So they will only replace your gun with a newer model as an option if you send it in for service and they no longer produce it.

The Smith trigger is "faster" as the reset spring is stronger, the Ruger you need to actively let the trigger out, not as much as a Colt or Kimber though. If you are shooting in IDPA or such or that is an issue the Smith is the way to go.

If you are looking at the Colt King Cobra or Kimber K6S series, they are about halfway between a K frame and J frame, so they will be smaller, lighter, not a target more of a carry gun with 38 plus P and very occasionally .357. Good guns though for that purpose and lighter and smaller to carry.

The Ruger used to be about $100-$200 cheaper than the Smith, they are about the same or more now. Grips are much more available for the Smith than the Ruger. Some do not like the balance or feel of the Ruger which has a peg grip, the Smith has an integral full grip that is part of the frame and heavier. Rugers tend to be more front balanced/heavy than Smiths which are more cylinder balanced.

The 7 shot models can only use the HKS speed loaders, the Safariland Comp IIs which are fantastic as far as I know are not available in 7 shots. HKS are ok, the Comp IIs are much, much faster and better in my opinion.

My advice is that unless you really want a feature not really available on the other: a non ammo binding 7 shot, user swappable front sight, slightly shorter trigger reach, or any other difference listed above, I would get the one available. As in you can buy it right now from your local gun store.

Sorry for the long boring details, I like shooting both quite a bit, Either one will serve you very, very well.

Hope this helps.

[SG29736]

95% of revolvers used in ICORE (revolver) matches are Smith & Wessons.

[Che762x39]

I got a S&W 686P (seven shooter) four inch in 2018 and never had a problem. I am reloader, so I got 3000 rounds down range.

[k1dude]

Great write-up SouthlandMan. Thanks.

[newbie1234]

Both revolvers are SIMILAR spec. and performance, get both. If you can get only one then:
(1) Get the one please your eyes.
(2) Personal preference.

[larkja]

Already did a review for you - https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1770898

586/686 was my verdict. But, if you're a Ruger fan, a little polishing and springs and you can have a really nice revolver.

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 ?

[Vinnie Boombatz]

I commented recently in this thread about picking up a 4" 686. Noticed a sharp burr that I didnt notice when I picked the gun up the other day from the shop. Noticed it when I was cleaning the gun for the first time yesterday (still haven't fired the gun). Took it to a local shop who has a reputable gunsmith. Asked if they could smooth that burr and ended up also leaving it to have a trigger job done.

I didn't mind the stock trigger on the 686. The DA is heavy, but it's smooth, doesnt really stack and isn't bad, but I figured why not, right? The gunsmith there apparently has a reputation for his trigger jobs on revolvers. Only downside is they are backed up for several weeks, but in the end it will eb worth the wait.

[Mayor McRifle]

I commented recently in this thread about picking up a 4" 686. Noticed a sharp burr that I didnt notice when I picked the gun up the other day from the shop. Noticed it when I was cleaning the gun for the first time yesterday (still haven't fired the gun). Took it to a local shop who has a reputable gunsmith. Asked if they could smooth that burr and ended up also leaving it to have a trigger job done.

I didn't mind the stock trigger on the 686. The DA is heavy, but it's smooth, doesnt really stack and isn't bad, but I figured why not, right? The gunsmith there apparently has a reputation for his trigger jobs on revolvers. Only downside is they are backed up for several weeks, but in the end it will eb worth the wait.

You could also just follow along with The King himself on this DVD and do your own trigger job on it: https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1014247174

CDBAED6D-CD2B-45C3-975B-658A13AAB4B2.jpg

[Vinnie Boombatz]

You could also just follow along with The King himself on this DVD and do your own trigger job on it: https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1014247174

[ATTACH]1106540[/ATTACH]

Could have, but didn't. There are plenty of this I can do (and have done myself) but with the way life is right now I just don't have the time to do it myself.

Some things are jsut worth paying someone else to do it, and do it right. Other times it may be better to take the time to learn it yourself by trail and error and doin git. But with full-time work and about to hand in a 50+ page comprehensive exam that will conclude my graduate studies, I have zero shame with paying a pro to do it.

[Garbcollector]

That's a tough choice both are great pistols, but I do own a 686 and it's a great shooter

[alpha_romeo_XV]

When I bought my 686 in 2005 there was a significant difference in MSRP between it and the cheaper Ruger GP100 - can't recall exactly but maybe $700 vs $500 (30% more for the S&W). Price gap has closed now ?

[jimmykan]

Old 686 (Pre-Lock) > Old or New GP100 (Same thing, hasn't changed much) > New 686 (Hillary hole S&Ws are lame)