Rem700CDLSF3006
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 282
hello all im thinking of getting a revolver,always had semi's my local store has a 686 Thinking it or a GP 100 want it to be one of them Any thoughts or comments on the 686
S&W 686
- Thread starter Rem700CDLSF3006
- Start date
- Status
I would choose the 686 , the reason being superior trigger feel and function. The 686 is the stainless version of the venerable 586 , which has a great reputation.
Either way , you have narrowed it down to two very good revolvers.
Either way , you have narrowed it down to two very good revolvers.
Maj Dad
Member
No experience with the Ruger, but my 686 no dash is like a Rolls-Royce. Ex-Cali police gun that has the best trigger I have ever found on any Smith - I can't recommend them highly enough.
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
I have two 686's. One is a 3" 686+, and the other is a performance center 686. Love em both.
The GP100 is a very sold gun also. Pick which ever you like better. Both will serve you well.
The GP100 is a very sold gun also. Pick which ever you like better. Both will serve you well.
ColtPythonElite
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 10,477
I don't see the need to disassemble a revolver to clean it.
I have a newer 7 shot 7" 686 and a 30 year old 8 3/8" 686. I like them both very much.
I have a newer 7 shot 7" 686 and a 30 year old 8 3/8" 686. I like them both very much.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Howdy
I have been buying Smith and Wesson revolvers for many years. I mostly buy them used, because I consider the older ones to be better made. Two years ago I picked up a new Model 686-6, because I did not have an L frame Smith in my collection, and because the price was right. When I took it to the range I had to crank the rear sight all the way over to the right to get it to print where I pointed it. Then I examined it a little bit closer and discovered the crane did not close all the way. Here is a photo of the yoke (the hinged part that the cylinder swings out on), closed as much as it will go. This is because the barrel has not been screwed in properly , but is canted slightly, preventing the crane from closing all the way. The crane should close all the way, there should not be a gap.
This is how the yoke should look on a S&W revolver. It should close completely with just a hairline showing where the yoke meets the frame.
So be forewarned. Check to make sure the yoke closes properly. Don't let anybody tell you they are all like that, the yoke should close completely. Shame on me for not catching this before I walked out of the store with it, but in my defense, I never would have dreamed such a poorly fitted gun would make it out of the factory.
P.S. Disassembling a revolver to to clean it is completely unnecessary.
I have been buying Smith and Wesson revolvers for many years. I mostly buy them used, because I consider the older ones to be better made. Two years ago I picked up a new Model 686-6, because I did not have an L frame Smith in my collection, and because the price was right. When I took it to the range I had to crank the rear sight all the way over to the right to get it to print where I pointed it. Then I examined it a little bit closer and discovered the crane did not close all the way. Here is a photo of the yoke (the hinged part that the cylinder swings out on), closed as much as it will go. This is because the barrel has not been screwed in properly , but is canted slightly, preventing the crane from closing all the way. The crane should close all the way, there should not be a gap.
This is how the yoke should look on a S&W revolver. It should close completely with just a hairline showing where the yoke meets the frame.
So be forewarned. Check to make sure the yoke closes properly. Don't let anybody tell you they are all like that, the yoke should close completely. Shame on me for not catching this before I walked out of the store with it, but in my defense, I never would have dreamed such a poorly fitted gun would make it out of the factory.
P.S. Disassembling a revolver to to clean it is completely unnecessary.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
I own a 4" M686 and I'm very happy I bought it. That revolver always goes to the range with me. Mine has quite very smooth trigger but it is an older gun, a M686-2.
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,312
At one time I had a S&W Model 686, Ruger GP100, and a Colt Trooper Mk.V. Had to sell two of them to pay for school. First to go was the GP100. Was the least refined of the three guns with a heavy, gritty trigger and less than ideal handling dynamics. The Trooper was very nice, possessing some of the best configured factory grips I have ever come across on a revolver. The gun just felt great in my hand, perfectly balanced, as did the Model 686. What made the Model 686 the final winner was it's incredible DA/SA trigger, smooth as silk right out of the box. It was also very well constructed with outstanding overall fit and finish.
Much has been said here about fit, finish and function right out of the box and that's where S&W excels. I've always preferred Colts, mainly because of Python's excellent build quality, but S&W isn't far behind. At one point I kind of liked Ruger Super Redhawk even though it's plagued with the same mass production issues as GP-series. Mediocre trigger pull is probably the worst. In an old-school mechanical masterpiece like a double action revolver the overall quality and feel plays a major role.
I like and have Smith and Wesson revolvers including a 686. Ruger DA revolvers look frumpy to me and I have one of them as well (Redhawk).
But that is personal preference and Ruger makes a strong, reliable revolver.
You cannot go wrong with either.
But that is personal preference and Ruger makes a strong, reliable revolver.
You cannot go wrong with either.
RealGun
Member
I have both a 686-6 and a GP100 Match Champion (in 357 Magnum), both 4" barrels. Two other GP100s are a 5" barrel standard grade and a 3" 41 Special converted from 38 Special. All of these have had significant post-purchase work and expense. I would say the 5" GP100 is my favorite at the range. It shoots great and is well balanced at that length. It has been back to Ruger for a binding cylinder. Most of my Rugers have had cylinder issues, DA and SA. The thing with the Smith & Wesson is the ECM rifling corresponding to heavy leading, even with chambers and forcing cone reworked. The trigger is superb after an action job and is certainly my preference in that department. Once all the guns are running right, no small feat in time, expense, and frustration; the 686 at 4" wins overall, given the right bullets, plated for example.
I plugged the lock hole and polished out the trigger and hammer.
I plugged the lock hole and polished out the trigger and hammer.
Last edited:
Glock Doctor
Member
Among many other S&W revolvers, I own an older Model 686-2; and I got 'a say that the Smith revolvers I pick up at gun counters, today, are nowhere near as well made as the older handguns. This being understood I do think that S&W trigger mechanisms have slightly faster lock times than what I've found on many Ruger revolvers; however, I also think that Sturm-Ruger does a better job of putting their pistols together than Smith is presently doing.
I'm a fan of the 686, but always been impressed by the GP100 and wouldn't hesitate to get one. Both models have their pros and cons. I tried to rattle a few of them off below. In no particular order...
The S&W has a reputation for being a bit more refined and having a better factory trigger. Truth be told, with some very rare exceptions, neither factory trigger is on par with what it could and should be with some good tuning. Both the 686 and GP100 respond really well to tuning. I'm an admitted trigger snob, and one of the best triggers I've ever felt was on a tuned GP100.
You'll hear a lot about the superior "strength" of the Ruger, generally referring to the tensile strength of the frame & cylinder. Maybe so, but both are plenty strong enough for anything you ought to be shooting through it. More relevant are differences in design that can affect durability. One of the Achilles heels of the S&W design is the yoke screw, IMO. It's the only thing keeping the entire yoke/cylinder assembly from falling off the front of the gun when the cylinder's open. It's generally not a problem, but if you plan on doing quick reloads with speed loaders, it can become a problem if you use a weak hand reload to slam those rounds home.
Another Achilles heel of the S&W design is that the cylinder assembly locks in front via the ejector rod, and the ejector rod turns as the cylinder turns. A bent ejector rod, then, can affect the quality of the DA pull. In extreme cases, it can tie the action up. In contrast, the GP100s ejector rod doesn't turn, and the cylinder locks up front at the yoke.
GP100s use a coil mainspring, whereas the 686 uses a flat leaf spring. The latter (leaf springs) have a reputation for producing a more consistent DA trigger pull.
As "internal safeties", GP100s use a transfer bar, whereas the 686 uses a hammer block. They essentially do opposite functions. The transfer bar of the GP100 transfers the energy of the hammer strike to the firing pin. I can't say I've ever measured it, but logic tells me some "oomph" is lost in the transfer and, as a result, the GP100 action can't be tuned quite as aggressively as the S&Ws. Logic also tells me the GP100 is instantly disabled if the transfer bar breaks, whereas a broken hammer block won't disable a 686 (unless the broken piece falls into the lockwork and ties it up).
The S&W cylinder release gets pushed forward with your thumb, whereas it gets pushed into the frame on the GP100. Personally, I think the S&W push-type is more intuitive and faster. Likely not an issue unless you're competing and going for über-fast reloads. And even then, I've seen some pretty darned fast GP100 competitors.It really comes down to personal preference.
At least the 4" GP100 comes with an interchangeable front sight, which is a very nice feature. The red ramp front sight of the 686 is mediocre. It's a jack-of-all trades front sight. If you're going to do anything serious with your 686, it needs something better.
Replacing some GP100 parts requires a trip back to the factory, and if it does go back to the factory, it'll come back in factory-stock condition. Something to be aware of if you modify and/or tune your gun. AFAIK, most parts that might ever need replacing on a S&W are available via commercial vendors, and there are numerous aftermarket parts for the 686 as well.
Lock time? meh. First, I think one would need some measuring equipment to determine any difference; and even if there were a measurable difference, I seriously doubt any but the most elite shooter could tell the difference. Don't sweat it.
Old vs new S&Ws? I don't disagree that the fit and finish of older S&Ws was better, but so long as everything's in spec, the newer S&Ws shoot as well (or better) than the older ones. Functionally, The Lock and MIM parts are non-issues. I've got over 70k hard rounds through one of my Lock- and MIM-infested 686s without an issue. And it's a tack driver to boot. As Driftwood Johnson indicates, not all examples you'll see are in spec, so follow his advice and be sure to check it out in person before buying.
The S&W has a reputation for being a bit more refined and having a better factory trigger. Truth be told, with some very rare exceptions, neither factory trigger is on par with what it could and should be with some good tuning. Both the 686 and GP100 respond really well to tuning. I'm an admitted trigger snob, and one of the best triggers I've ever felt was on a tuned GP100.
You'll hear a lot about the superior "strength" of the Ruger, generally referring to the tensile strength of the frame & cylinder. Maybe so, but both are plenty strong enough for anything you ought to be shooting through it. More relevant are differences in design that can affect durability. One of the Achilles heels of the S&W design is the yoke screw, IMO. It's the only thing keeping the entire yoke/cylinder assembly from falling off the front of the gun when the cylinder's open. It's generally not a problem, but if you plan on doing quick reloads with speed loaders, it can become a problem if you use a weak hand reload to slam those rounds home.
Another Achilles heel of the S&W design is that the cylinder assembly locks in front via the ejector rod, and the ejector rod turns as the cylinder turns. A bent ejector rod, then, can affect the quality of the DA pull. In extreme cases, it can tie the action up. In contrast, the GP100s ejector rod doesn't turn, and the cylinder locks up front at the yoke.
GP100s use a coil mainspring, whereas the 686 uses a flat leaf spring. The latter (leaf springs) have a reputation for producing a more consistent DA trigger pull.
As "internal safeties", GP100s use a transfer bar, whereas the 686 uses a hammer block. They essentially do opposite functions. The transfer bar of the GP100 transfers the energy of the hammer strike to the firing pin. I can't say I've ever measured it, but logic tells me some "oomph" is lost in the transfer and, as a result, the GP100 action can't be tuned quite as aggressively as the S&Ws. Logic also tells me the GP100 is instantly disabled if the transfer bar breaks, whereas a broken hammer block won't disable a 686 (unless the broken piece falls into the lockwork and ties it up).
The S&W cylinder release gets pushed forward with your thumb, whereas it gets pushed into the frame on the GP100. Personally, I think the S&W push-type is more intuitive and faster. Likely not an issue unless you're competing and going for über-fast reloads. And even then, I've seen some pretty darned fast GP100 competitors.It really comes down to personal preference.
At least the 4" GP100 comes with an interchangeable front sight, which is a very nice feature. The red ramp front sight of the 686 is mediocre. It's a jack-of-all trades front sight. If you're going to do anything serious with your 686, it needs something better.
Replacing some GP100 parts requires a trip back to the factory, and if it does go back to the factory, it'll come back in factory-stock condition. Something to be aware of if you modify and/or tune your gun. AFAIK, most parts that might ever need replacing on a S&W are available via commercial vendors, and there are numerous aftermarket parts for the 686 as well.
Lock time? meh. First, I think one would need some measuring equipment to determine any difference; and even if there were a measurable difference, I seriously doubt any but the most elite shooter could tell the difference. Don't sweat it.
Old vs new S&Ws? I don't disagree that the fit and finish of older S&Ws was better, but so long as everything's in spec, the newer S&Ws shoot as well (or better) than the older ones. Functionally, The Lock and MIM parts are non-issues. I've got over 70k hard rounds through one of my Lock- and MIM-infested 686s without an issue. And it's a tack driver to boot. As Driftwood Johnson indicates, not all examples you'll see are in spec, so follow his advice and be sure to check it out in person before buying.
Lay the GP 100 (better yet the Match Champion version) and a 686 side by side in front of you. Point, operate the trigger, and just close your eyes and run your hand over both. One will speak to you and that is what you should buy and never look back.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
RealGun
Member
They might speak to you, but I changed grips on both guns. Try to discount that factor in any first impressions.
Never had Ruger GP100 so can't comment on the revolver. I do have a 686 6" that I bought new in 1985. This thing is tight, slick and smooth and accurate to a fault. I like it so much I used it to take quite a few deer in lieu of using a rifle. With 125 grain JHPs or 158 grain JHPs it is a deer killing machine. I shoot a lot of HBWCs and the 686 puts them into one hole if I do my part. The trigger is jewel smooth and the revolver fits my small hand perfectly.
Catpop
Member
I have a 4" GP100. I have a friend who has a 4" 686. Both about same age. I shoot mine a minimum of 10 times more than he does. His had to go in for forcing cone service right after he got it. 
Mines probably digested over 2k by now and is kinda like the energizer bunny, "It just keeps going and going and going!"
Mines probably digested over 2k by now and is kinda like the energizer bunny, "It just keeps going and going and going!"ColtPythonElite
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 10,477
My 7" 686 has had at least 4k magnums thru it in the past 2 years. I assume it's forcing cone is still fine... I have not cleaned it yet. It's kinda hard to see under all the carbon and spatter.... Lol- Status
