Ruger GP-100 vs. Smith 586 and 686 both in .357 with 6 inch barrels.

Status
Not open for further replies.

stinger 327

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
3,204
Between both of these revolvers which one is made better, more accurate and better for personal protection?
Take note the Ruger that I know of does not make 7 shot revolvers.
The Smith comes in both 6 shot and 7 shot revolvers 586 and 686.

The Smith & Wesson brand is always more expensive than its Ruger counterpart.
Which one would you pick and why for the above purposes?:confused:
 
I shoot a lot and after a few thousand rounds my 7 shot and 8 shots S&W went out of timing. I heard from a reputable smith that the notches in the cylinder are not as deep as in the 6 shot versions. Im still happy with them but would consider a 6 shot for a high round range gun.
 
They would both serve you very well. It's kind of like asking, which is better, Ford or Chevy.

I had a 4" GP-100 I wish I still had, as well as a 6" 586 I wish I still had. I prefer the DA pull on the Ruger, but YMMV.
 
It comes down to your personal choice but, for me Ruger is a much stronger built firearm that will give you a lifetime of a steady diet of heavy magnum rounds. Smith is finished nicer but, a seven round cylinder means thinner walls as well. Take a look at the forcing cones for comparison and the lock-up mechanisms. I think the quality of S&W has gone way down over the years and I would never buy a revolver with a "Clinton lock" on it. Only my view of course.
 
The S&W will most likely be a smoother gun. I don't have GP, but my SP101 is not a fine machine by any means.

I disagree that this a Ford vs Chevy, it is a matter of money.
 
The balance on both guns are entirely different, so make sure you pick up and test both before you purchase. The Ruger has a heavier barrel because its grip was greatly lightened by a post. I greatly prefer the S&W 686.

sW686_1a-2.jpg

.
 
It comes down to your personal choice but, for me Ruger is a much stronger built firearm that will give you a lifetime of a steady diet of heavy magnum rounds. Smith is finished nicer but, a seven round cylinder means thinner walls as well. Take a look at the forcing cones for comparison and the lock-up mechanisms. I think the quality of S&W has gone way down over the years and I would never buy a revolver with a "Clinton lock" on it. Only my view of course.
You aren't the only person I have heard this from. They say that GP-101 is over built and will stand up to full magnum loads all day and Buffalo Bore loads. The quality of the Smith has gone down and price has gone up. I had a 617 10 shot .22 LR Smith revolver and the cylinder for some reason jammed and wouldn't turn when I first took it out on the range. I was using CCI Stingers and It didn't take many of those stingers before the cylinder locked up and wouldn't turn anymore. I sent it back and Smith took care of it.
 
The balance on both guns are entirely different, so make sure you pick up and test both before you purchase. The Ruger has a heavier barrel because its grip was greatly lightened by a post. I greatly prefer the S&W 686.

View attachment 723214

.
That's a beautiful revolver just like my 617.
But this is a 686? I thought 686 had 7 shots and not 6 like this one shows in the other pics you posted.
the 586 is the 6 shot .357.
 
Last edited:
The S&W will most likely be a smoother gun. I don't have GP, but my SP101 is not a fine machine by any means.

I disagree that this a Ford vs Chevy, it is a matter of money.
I had a SP-101 snub nose. Nice little .357 and heavy but still a snub nose which was more difficult to shoot. Sold that

I also had a LCR .38 +P and that really hurt to shoot. It literally felt like it was blowing up in my hand. I sold it.
But now I am considering getting that LCR .357-guess I am a glutton for punishment but I like the trigger pull on those LCR's. When I bought the LCR .38 +P the .357 LCR was not made at that time.
 
I shoot a lot and after a few thousand rounds my 7 shot and 8 shots S&W went out of timing. I heard from a reputable smith that the notches in the cylinder are not as deep as in the 6 shot versions. Im still happy with them but would consider a 6 shot for a high round range gun.
I wasn't aware that Smith had an 8 shot revolver? I thought it was Taurus that had the 8 shot revolver and also a 7 shot revolver but I don't know about the quality of those Taurus revolvers. I think I go with the Ruger before I went with the Taurus.
 
FWIW-- my main range gun is a 6'' 686, with the lock. It is approaching 5000 rounds through it, and I've not had an ounce of trouble with the thing.

Regarding lock-up and the 'quality': I can say this- I also own three other SW revolvers, ranging from 1962 through the late 80's (model 29, 36, and 17), and the lock-up is as tight on my 686 today as it was when I bought it, as well as tight as the other revolvers I have from an earlier Smith era.

Regarding the "Clinton Lock" as others have put it: this has never been an issue, nor have the MIM parts. One thing you'll notice on a Ruger is the warning label about reading the owner's manual stamped on the barrel. I find this more obnoxious than the hole, personally. It really irritates me when people overlook one lawyer's mark for another, when the functionality of the lock has been, for me, a complete non-issue.

Two additional pros for the 686: the trigger is single action is absolutely stellar out of the box, and the gun also shoots lead bullets well. I've shot lead hard cast from more than one Ruger whose barrel/bullet fit were not just right, and one had a decent size burr in the rifling that lapping the barrel would have taken care of. I've pushed hard cast lead in 357 mag upwards of 1400fps without issue.

In the end, they're both fine guns, I just wanted to provide some positive feedback for the newer Smiths. I'm not sure they were any cheaper, dollar for dollar, in the 80's, 70's, etc.
 
FWIW-- my main range gun is a 6'' 686, with the lock. It is approaching 5000 rounds through it, and I've not had an ounce of trouble with the thing.

Regarding lock-up and the 'quality': I can say this- I also own three other SW revolvers, ranging from 1962 through the late 80's (model 29, 36, and 17), and the lock-up is as tight on my 686 today as it was when I bought it, as well as tight as the other revolvers I have from an earlier Smith era.

Regarding the "Clinton Lock" as others have put it: this has never been an issue, nor have the MIM parts. One thing you'll notice on a Ruger is the warning label about reading the owner's manual stamped on the barrel. I find this more obnoxious than the hole, personally. It really irritates me when people overlook one lawyer's mark for another, when the functionality of the lock has been, for me, a complete non-issue.

Two additional pros for the 686: the trigger is single action is absolutely stellar out of the box, and the gun also shoots lead bullets well. I've shot lead hard cast from more than one Ruger whose barrel/bullet fit were not just right, and one had a decent size burr in the rifling that lapping the barrel would have taken care of. I've pushed hard cast lead in 357 mag upwards of 1400fps without issue.

In the end, they're both fine guns, I just wanted to provide some positive feedback for the newer Smiths. I'm not sure they were any cheaper, dollar for dollar, in the 80's, 70's, etc.
iT's just that the price of those Smith's are so expensive. Perhaps the pricing is getting beyond what I will spend. For the kind of money for the Smith I could get a Sig P-220 pistol instead but that's something else.

what is the Clinton Lock? Is that the key that locks the gun up making it totally useless? My 617 had this but I thought it was a California law only.
On the GP-100 i am not sure what you are referring to but there is a decal or sticker telling you to read the owner's manual on the gun?-I didn't see that when I looked at the GP-100 in black. I don't even remember seeing a lock on the GP-100 but it was black in color. The sticker would be totally obnoxious. This isn't a California only thing is it? Where they are supposedly shipping pistols that have that magazine safety built in where if you drop the magazine it renders the pistol useless even if you have one in the chamber? Also another California item only where there is an indicator pop up to indicate gun is loaded and that really ruins the lines of the pistol.
 
Last edited:
The Smith is like an armored vehicle

The Ruger is like a tank

Yes, I've shot them both plenty.

Between the two, personally I would go Ruger. Although the 586/686 is a fine revolver, too.
 
The Smith is like an armored vehicle

The Ruger is like a tank

Yes, I've shot them both plenty.

Between the two, personally I would go Ruger. Although the 586/686 is a fine revolver, too.
Well that's good then they are both good handguns that are durable and should last a lifetime. Pass it down to your kids.
 
I have a newer 7 shot 7" 686 and a 686-1 8 3/8". Both are very well made. I have owned/own dozens of .357 revolvers. The 8 3/8" gun is in the top 3 most accurate.
 
FWIW-- my main range gun is a 6'' 686, with the lock. It is approaching 5000 rounds through it, and I've not had an ounce of trouble with the thing.

Regarding lock-up and the 'quality': I can say this- I also own three other SW revolvers, ranging from 1962 through the late 80's (model 29, 36, and 17), and the lock-up is as tight on my 686 today as it was when I bought it, as well as tight as the other revolvers I have from an earlier Smith era.

Regarding the "Clinton Lock" as others have put it: this has never been an issue, nor have the MIM parts. One thing you'll notice on a Ruger is the warning label about reading the owner's manual stamped on the barrel. I find this more obnoxious than the hole, personally. It really irritates me when people overlook one lawyer's mark for another, when the functionality of the lock has been, for me, a complete non-issue.

Two additional pros for the 686: the trigger is single action is absolutely stellar out of the box, and the gun also shoots lead bullets well. I've shot lead hard cast from more than one Ruger whose barrel/bullet fit were not just right, and one had a decent size burr in the rifling that lapping the barrel would have taken care of. I've pushed hard cast lead in 357 mag upwards of 1400fps without issue.

In the end, they're both fine guns, I just wanted to provide some positive feedback for the newer Smiths. I'm not sure they were any cheaper, dollar for dollar, in the 80's, 70's, etc.
I never said I did not like S&W since I own a few and love them...all older models which I feel were built much better. I also don't like the paragraph of warnings on the Ruger which is why I bought the 5 inch distributers exclusive version, see photo...no paragraph. By the way the lock was not a "lawyers mark" is was a deal with a very anti-gun administration that nearly put S&W out of business due to the boycotts which caused them to sell the company and the guns have never been the same. Warped barrels I have returned as well as timing issues. I am glad you got a good one but, that was not my experience is all.
 

Attachments

  • 357 new_grip.jpg
    357 new_grip.jpg
    118.3 KB · Views: 58
My 6" 686P is a well balanced, incredibly accurate revolver.
I handled a Ruger in the same store and really liked it but found the weight, trigger, sights, balance, and capacity were all better on the Smith.
As I planned on alot of 38 specials and I don't load my magnums real hot very often I didn't see much merit in the extra heavy Ruger action.
The Smith in all likelyhood will wear out a little faster, but it will probably be in one of my descendants hands.

Interesting fact: since the cylinder notch cuts in the 7 shot 686P cylinder are offset from the chambers due to the odd number of rounds, the 6 shot cylinder actually has thinner walls. There's still more "meat" between the chambers in the 7 shot, than the 6 shots chambers to the cylinder notch cut.

In all fairness, the Ruger was way overpriced at this particular gunstore, and the Smith qualified for some promotion and was decently priced to start with so it was only about a $50 difference.

But I've been seeing blued and stainless GP-100s locally for between $520-550 regularly alot lately. If that had been the price when I was shopping I would have been perfectly content with the Ruger still today. They are good guns.

I'd say buy the first good deal you find on one or the other!
 
Last edited:
I never said I did not like S&W since I own a few and love them...all older models which I feel were built much better. I also don't like the paragraph of warnings on the Ruger which is why I bought the 5 inch distributers exclusive version, see photo...no paragraph. By the way the lock was not a "lawyers mark" is was a deal with a very anti-gun administration that nearly put S&W out of business due to the boycotts which caused them to sell the company and the guns have never been the same. Warped barrels I have returned as well as timing issues. I am glad you got a good one but, that was not my experience is all.
You mean the Smiths had warped barrels and timing issues?
That Ruger with 5 inch barrel is very nice also. I love that grip. It's a special limited edition?
 
I have a newer 7 shot 7" 686 and a 686-1 8 3/8". Both are very well made. I have owned/own dozens of .357 revolvers. The 8 3/8" gun is in the top 3 most accurate.
That .44 mag with 8 3/4 barrel old version Model 29? is also very accurate. First shot I put a bullseye on target.
 
I think it has been pretty well covered but I will pile on anyway. I love them both but opted for the Ruger. Not because I think it is a better gun but because I just liked the look and feel better.

They both have strong points and very few week points. The Rugers are built heavier but, IMO, the Smiths have slightly smoother triggers.

As has already been stated, buy the one that feels best in your hands and don't look back.
 
I think it has been pretty well covered but I will pile on anyway. I love them both but opted for the Ruger. Not because I think it is a better gun but because I just liked the look and feel better.

They both have strong points and very few week points. The Rugers are built heavier but, IMO, the Smiths have slightly smoother triggers.

As has already been stated, buy the one that feels best in your hands and don't look back.
Yes I agree I will have to compare when I find them both together at the same place the 6 inch GP-101 to the 6 inch 686. I will usually go with the one that feels better in my hand, handles good and has a nice trigger on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top