Will be my first revolver

[Back on target 0]

One of my three permits, when I get them, is going to my first revolver.

Trying to decide between Ruger GP100 and S&W 686, both 4" barrels.

The gp100 felt better in my hand.

The 686 has 7 rounds.

Haven't shot any of them.

Any suggestions.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[M4BGRINGO 139]

The gun that feels good in your hands. Both the Ruger and S&W's are GREAT guns!

[Double Cheese 8]

My first revolver was a 6" 686.  My second wheel gun was a 3" GP100 (purchased 1 month after the 686).  They're both great.  If the GP100 feels better in your hand, I'd suggest starting there.  Be sure to try out a 686 at some point as well.  Good luck!

[buell508 6]

686

[jm1827 284]

First gun I bought when I turned 21 was a 686 with a 6" barrel, still love that gun!

[Sixtytwo327 14]

Shot both, both are great, have a 686. Either is a good choice.

[GRIZ 3,369]

Either one is a winner. Trigger better in a 686, GP100 more durable. If you're really concerned about "what fits your hand" get the GP100 as it doesn't have a grip frame like the 686 allowing much more variety in the type of grips you use.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

While it's important for a gun to feel good in your hand, it shouldn't be your sole criteria for buying one over another. I have a few revolvers, and the first thing I do is change out the grips - the true interface between the shooter & the gun and the one with the largest influence on how a gun "feels" in your hand. There are few stock grips that I truly like - I will admit that the stock grips that feel really good to me are the Ruger rubber & wood ones, but even those were improved upon by a good set of Hogue's (my favorites).

 

If you are leaning toward the 686 and you have any inkling of shooting it competitively, down the road, be aware that a 4" 6-shot gun (not the 686+) gives you the most versatility as far as games are concerned.

 

Good luck with whichever you choose - but choose it for all the right reasons.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[alec.mc 180]

Bob made some great points about grips, I run Houge aftermarket grips on ALL of my revolvers, the factory grips just dont work for me.

 

Another tidbid is, IIRC the GP100 is just slightly larger then the K/L frame of the 686, which why it may felt better in your hands, You might be more comfortable going one size up to the S&W N-Frame revolvers......

 

...and while I mention that, my advice would be to skip over the 7 shot 686+ , IMO it's a small niche dying variation of the smith series, 7 shots is just a weird number to have, the aftermarket product line is weak. 

 

Do yourself a favor and look at the S&W 627 series, while it might be a few bucks more expensive, it's worlds better - Larger more comfortable frame, 8 shots of .357 magnum, tons and tons of aftermarket support and products, cut for moon clips, a high ( and growing ) resale value, and is a great candidate for * gun games * like steel challenge and USPSA ( come feb. 2014 ) 

[Back on target 0]

Very good points are brought up here, thanks.

While my permits are getting ready ill do more homework and try to shoot them.

So, the Ruger is not approved for games? It wasn't on my mind but why limit the possibilities.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[illy 1]

 

Do yourself a favor and look at the S&W 627 series.

[GRIZ 3,369]

Very good points are brought up here, thanks.

While my permits are getting ready ill do more homework and try to shoot them.

So, the Ruger is not approved for games? It wasn't on my mind but why limit the possibilities.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Can't see why the Ruger would not be approved for games. Where did you get that info?

[alec.mc 180]

i'm sure bobby will beat me to the punch, but:

 

 

The rugers are approved, you can use whatever gun your little heart desires, but for some applications there are just better candidates out there. Take a look at the pro competition guys that shoot revolver, you never see a ruger in their hands - it's always a S&W, and for good reason.

 

Quality is better, aftermarket product availability, modifications - easier to have a quality trigger job on a smith over a Ruger, 

 

Sounds like you have alot of research to do, figure out what you want to do with it, what gun games you'd like to compete in, and what you want to get out of it and go from there. 

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

The Ruger is fine for games with a 4" barrel or less - you just don't see many people using them. Probably a reason for that.

 

While GRIZ & I agree on most things revolver, let me just say that if he means "robust" as in larger, then he is correct. If he means "robust" as stronger, then I'd have to disagree.

 

Many people look at Ruger products and because of the thickness of the frame elements - the top strap for example - think that they must be stronger than similar sized S&W's. There is an inherent difference between the two. The Ruger is larger because it needs to be, to be as strong as the Smith. Rugers are investment cast - a very good, very precise form of casting (also known as the "lost wax" process) that requires little finish maching - but it is cast. The S&W frame is forged. Casting can result in greater frame porosity and even the possibility of voids (would hope their QC has some method to detect these). Forging does not fall prey to these same foibles. A forged piece of a smaller dimension can be stronger than a cast piece of a larger dimension.

 

Not a slam on Ruger - they build a fine product at an excellent price, and can do so because of their manufacturing methods. I just think it's important to understand the differences. Whether that has an impact on your decision or not, is up to you - but I wouldn't assume the Ruger is more "robust".

 

Just to muddy the waters a bit - I own both Ruger's and Smith's - although a few more of the latter than the former.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[Bully 749]

i'm sure bobby will beat me to the punch, but:

 

 

The rugers are approved, you can use whatever gun your little heart desires, but for some applications there are just better candidates out there. Take a look at the pro competition guys that shoot revolver, you never see a ruger in their hands - it's always a S&W, and for good reason.

 

Yes.  Because pros are paid to shoot what is given them.  Just like in every other sport.

 

C

[Bully 749]

FWIW, I own S&W's.  I like the aesthetics a bit more.  They are a touch more...  refined.  Because of the thinner topstraps and such as opposed to the Ruger.  Also, there is a bit more finish work on things like the hammer and the edges of the gun.  I happen to appreciate that kind of thing. 

 

That being said, I lust after the GP100 3" Wiley Clapp in black in a big way.  Just a really good looking gun.  Would be tough to sell it to myself as I own a S&W 686+ 3" already.  But I do want one.  Also, a 4" blued GP would be great as would one of each size SP101, and maybe...  etc, etc, etc.

 

Get what feel right.  You won't go wrong with either.

 

C

[alec.mc 180]

Yes.  Because pros are paid to shoot what is given them.  Just like in every other sport.

 

C

 

Not nessasarily true, But even past the whole pro aspect - When you do see revolvers competing, seldom they are holstering a ruger.

[GRIZ 3,369]

The Ruger is fine for games with a 4" barrel or less - you just don't see many people using them. Probably a reason for that.

 

While GRIZ & I agree on most things revolver, let me just say that if he means "robust" as in larger, then he is correct. If he means "robust" as stronger, then I'd have to disagree.

 

Many people look at Ruger products and because of the thickness of the frame elements - the top strap for example - think that they must be stronger than similar sized S&W's. There is an inherent difference between the two. The Ruger is larger because it needs to be, to be as strong as the Smith. Rugers are investment cast - a very good, very precise form of casting (also known as the "lost wax" process) that requires little finish maching - but it is cast. The S&W frame is forged. Casting can result in greater frame porosity and even the possibility of voids (would hope their QC has some method to detect these). Forging does not fall prey to these same foibles. A forged piece of a smaller dimension can be stronger than a cast piece of a larger dimension.

 

Not a slam on Ruger - they build a fine product at an excellent price, and can do so because of their manufacturing methods. I just think it's important to understand the differences. Whether that has an impact on your decision or not, is up to you - but I wouldn't assume the Ruger is more "robust".

 

Just to muddy the waters a bit - I own both Ruger's and Smith's - although a few more of the latter than the former.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

Well Bob here is where we agree to disagree.  Yes, forging is generally stronger than casting.  However, the side plate design of the S&W frame means that there is only a complete frame on one side of the gun unlike the Ruger which totally encloses the cylinder.  Ruger frames are not only investment cast but also use some type of nodular casting technology.  Nodular casting sets up the stress lines in the metal so they are more dispersed than in a forged part.  How strong is nodular casting?  Most crankshafts in cars have been made this way since at least the 60s.  Yes racers use forged crankshafts which are stronger but they are confined to the dimenisonal limits of the engine.  If you thicken up that topstrap and other parts of the frame you can have that frame stronger than a forged part.

 

Another incident helped form my opinion of Ruger's strength.  I helped test guns for adoption by the US Border Patrol back in the early 80s.  S&W submitted the Model 66 and Ruger the Security Six (frame design basically the same as GP100 and Redhawk).  S&W were tested first as they were th low bidder.  The test required 10,000 rd of full magnums without any major issues.  The S&Ws developed problems like timing, forcing cone cracking, flame cutting, frame stretching, and one gun blew up its cylinder at 400 rds.  The longest one lasted was 1500 rds.

 

The Rugers went the 10,000 magnums with no problems.  We wanted to see how much farther they would go and one developed a timing issue at 13-14K rds IIRC.  The rest of the guns hit 20,000 rds and they wouldn't give us any more ammo.

 

I own both and shoot both and will say you can't go wrong whichever you choose.   

[DSD1026 48]

you can't go wrong whichever you choose.   

this seems like the answer...  from what i have seen (and not in any technical knowledge of either of these revolvers), the Smiths are just a TINY bit nicer looking, but (IMO only) not better enough looking to spend the extra $150 on it..   I shot a GP100 and it felt pretty nice.  They are both solid guns and both will typically last longer than you do if cared for properly...  i wouldnt hesitate to get either one (in the 4") if i was in the market for a revolver

 

you really do need to shoot them both to come to a true decision though.. (and Bob was right, dont go by the grips, as those are swappable..  my 640 felt way too small until I swapped the standard grips for some hogue monogrips, now it feels MUCH nicer in my hand)..

[302w 83]

S&W makes a better revolver, hands down. By all means, Ruger does NOT make Taurus-quality junk. There is nothing wrong with a Ruger. 

 

An older S&W is better than a new one, but nonetheless, you can't buy better. I'll disagree with GRIZ and politely call BS. 

 

Before someone chimes in and says Pythons are the pinnacle of revolvers... the fit and finish is top notch, but S&W had a better design, sorry. 

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

Well Bob here is where we agree to disagree.  Yes, forging is generally stronger than casting.  However, the side plate design of the S&W frame means that there is only a complete frame on one side of the gun unlike the Ruger which totally encloses the cylinder.  Ruger frames are not only investment cast but also use some type of nodular casting technology.  Nodular casting sets up the stress lines in the metal so they are more dispersed than in a forged part.  How strong is nodular casting?  Most crankshafts in cars have been made this way since at least the 60s.  Yes racers use forged crankshafts which are stronger but they are confined to the dimenisonal limits of the engine.  If you thicken up that topstrap and other parts of the frame you can have that frame stronger than a forged part.

 

Another incident helped form my opinion of Ruger's strength.  I helped test guns for adoption by the US Border Patrol back in the early 80s.  S&W submitted the Model 66 and Ruger the Security Six (frame design basically the same as GP100 and Redhawk).  S&W were tested first as they were th low bidder.  The test required 10,000 rd of full magnums without any major issues.  The S&Ws developed problems like timing, forcing cone cracking, flame cutting, frame stretching, and one gun blew up its cylinder at 400 rds.  The longest one lasted was 1500 rds.

 

The Rugers went the 10,000 magnums with no problems.  We wanted to see how much farther they would go and one developed a timing issue at 13-14K rds IIRC.  The rest of the guns hit 20,000 rds and they wouldn't give us any more ammo.

 

I own both and shoot both and will say you can't go wrong whichever you choose.   

 

In the first paragraph, isn't that essentially what I said? And I have never seen or heard of a S&W frame failing because they use a side plate. The cylinder is indeed surrounded by a continuous frame. If the gun fails catastrophically, it will be cylinder and the top strap that blow out.

 

As for the Border Patrol testing - that's kind of an apples to oranges comparison. The model 19/66 is considerably smaller than the Security Six. Apparently this was either before, or just as, Smith introduced the L-frame - a fairer comparison, size-wise, to the Security six or today's GP100. Pretty much every revolver person is aware of the problems and limitations of the K-frame with a steady diet of magnum ammo. They are a result of the physical constraints caused by the size of the gun and the main reason the L-frame exists.

 

That being said - and keeping it Border Patrol relevant, there is no doubt the Bill Jordan would (and did) choose the K-frame guns to bet his life on and the title of his book, No Second Place Winner, says it all.

 

We're not really disagreeing, we both stated the same conclusion, you can't go wrong with either.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[CommonSense 0]

I always preferred Smith revolvers over Rugers and Colts. I always liked the feel of Smith triggers the best and they are the easiest to work on. I used to shoot NRA PPC (Police Pistol Combat) matches in the early 90's and you saw 99.99% Smiths out there. I've owned and carried some Taurus revolvers and found them to be of sound design; they are not junk. I would just like to add that in 20 years as a law enforcement firearms instructor and armorer, I have seen virtually every make and model handgun malfunction during live fire. 

[Phillies 2]

I was also going to get my first revolver when my next pistol permit comes in (2 months and counting).   I was also looking at the Smith Wesson 686 Plus but wasn't sure if I should get the 4 or 6 inch barrel. I was leaning more towards the 4....

[Worn_Holster 2]

My first gun ever was a Ruger Security Six back in 1981, the day I turned 21. It is a stout pistol and I still own and shoot it. It will outlive me and I'll pass it down to my son or daughter if one of them wants it. Since then, I have bought a S&W 1917 Govt 45acp revolver and a pre-29 .44 Mag. Both of them are fun and accurate to shoot and the trigger on the pre-29 is unbeatable. That said, I have just put in for a P2P and I am going to add a 2nd Ruger to the club. I am looking at a Redhawk .44 7 1/2" as the new addition. If you look in some loading manuals, there are loads designated for Ruger revolvers only. If you ask me to read into that, I'd say that the Ruger design is indeed stronger than the Smith.