# Ruger Gp100 or S&W 686



## medic3 (Nov 3, 2006)

I'm looking into purchasing a new revolver and I narrowed it down to 2. I looking at the Ruger GP100 blued 6", I like it because it's blued not stainless. The other is the S&W 686PP or 686 Plus 7 shot, I know the S&W has the better reputation but I'm looking for different opinions of people that have both or have experience with both.

Thanks


----------



## hberttmank (May 5, 2006)

You can't go wrong with either one. I slightly prefer the S&W because I like the looks better and Smiths tend to have a better trigger out of the box.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

They are both good guns. The Ruger is stronger and the Smith more expensive. I have a new GP100 4" that had a very nice trigger right out of the box. 3.5Lb SA and 9.5Lb. DA measured, not guessed at. Had to clean some burrs out of the hammer path but that is not unusual for either brand. I like the ability to change front sights in seconds with the GP100. I installed a Millet Orange front and have a Orange Fibre optic front should I choose to use it. 

Either brand will work well for you.

:smt1099


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

I got to jump on the band wagon too as they are both great guns. You will pass them down to your grand kids some day. Yes their that good. If your going to get the six inch barrel models they are good for deer/hog hunting with the right loads. Let us know which one you get with some pictures and a range report. Good luck.:smt033


----------



## Snowman (Jan 2, 2007)

The trigger on my GP100 breaks like glass. I wouldn't trade it for a Smith.


----------



## neophyte (Aug 13, 2007)

Gp100


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

I'd get the Smith. All the Ruger DA revolvers I've owned have had terrible, "stagy" DA pulls, though the SA pull was always good. My Smiths invariably had better DA pulls. I pretty much only shot DA, though, and if you shoot mostly SA, I doubt it matters.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> I'd get the Smith. All the Ruger DA revolvers I've owned have had terrible, "stagy" DA pulls, though the SA pull was always good. My Smiths invariably had better DA pulls. I pretty much only shot DA, though, and if you shoot mostly SA, I doubt it matters.


You should try a new Ruger Mike. The GP100 I purchased last December has a significantly better trigger than the older ones I have had and tried.

:smt1099


----------



## Bowhunter57 (Nov 25, 2006)

medic3,
Again...both are fine handguns. However, I'd favor the Ruger, as I've owned one and had absolutely no complaints with it. Single or double action, light or heavy bullets, mild or hot loads, none of it matters with the Ruger.

Good luck with your choices!
Good hunting, Bowhunter57


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2008)

TOF said:


> They are both good guns. The Ruger is stronger and the Smith more expensive. I have a new GP100 4" that had a very nice trigger right out of the box. 3.5Lb SA and 9.5Lb. DA measured, not guessed at. Had to clean some burrs out of the hammer path but that is not unusual for either brand. I like the ability to change front sights in seconds with the GP100. I installed a Millet Orange front and have a Orange Fibre optic front should I choose to use it.
> 
> Either brand will work well for you.
> 
> :smt1099


My experience too. The front sight is awesome and the trigger is excellent. Buy the Ruger, don't look back and the grandkids will enjoy it as well.


----------



## 4X4SNEAK (Jan 27, 2008)

I have a GP100/4" stainless. I have owned it for 16 years and it has been a great revolver with thousands of rounds fired. I also have handloaded some very hot loads and it is still tight!

I think the Ruger is generally more rugged and durable. I also think it is underated as far as trigger quality and accuracy.


----------



## Bullseye (May 14, 2007)

I have a GP100 6" made in 2006 and it has a smoother & lighter trigger pull than my Smith or Colt KC. I would go with the Ruger.


----------

