New GP100 vs new 686

[Rich]

I like the GP100 3inch with the old school grip over the 686 snub nose for AIWB carry
Both are tack drivers.

I like the looks of the 686 better, and think the 688 has more class.

Its just that I was a tad faster with the GP100. (6rds inside the 10ring as fast as I can yank the trigger)

If I couldn't get a GP100 3inch my next pick would be a 686 3inch maybe even a 7 shooter. Again using only 38spl / +P.

[Rich]

I am really curious about "burned by Ruger revolvers too many times". Could you elaborate. One thing I have found with a VERY long history with Rugers in a wide variety of applications is that their revolvers work and work well. While their trigger actions have usually not been as good as the Smith's, their reliability has been without issue, and the Ruger factory has always been good about fixing things that are broken (unless modified outside of the factory).

I like both for different reasons, but when it comes to digesting heavy modern ammunition, and reliability under adverse conditions, the Rugers have always gotten the nod. For pure aesthetics, trigger feel, and some neat variants, then its the Smith's.

I agree !

[Willard]

Man, if you look around you can find a nice vintage 19,13, 686 or similar smith .357 for around $400. I just bought a mint, near unfired 19-5 for around that. I've just been burned by Ruger revolvers too many times. For me, it's Smith or nothing.

Long time lurker, first time poster. Burned by Ruger I had to comment on. I've posted this on M4carbine.net, Rugerforum.net, and I believe elsewhere...Let me share a recent experience with Ruger Customer Service. We hear a lot about the bad, but not so often about the good. I recently returned a Ruger Security Six to the factory for repair. The front latch was not positively latching in the hole in the end of the ejector rod. It would slip out when you applied side to side motion, indicating a problem. Lightly used and near new looking revolver.

First, since this particular revolver had been out of production since the 80's, I'm surprised when they assign me an RMA and tell me to send it in. I expected them to tell me to pound sand and they were out of parts.

I like the revolver, so I don't mind sending it on my dime if there is a hope of repair. Of note, the customer service agent did not ask if I was the original owner, round count, or anything beyond information needed to determine the problem and where to return the gun. As far as I can tell, Ruger does not have a stated warranty.

Approximately one week later, I'm notified the factory cannot repair the revolver. They don't explain why, but do offer a new double action revolver of my choosing at NO cost to me. In the end, they ship a Match Champion. In theory, I guess I could have selected a more expensive Ruger .44 mag. I wouldn't have, but the offer seemed to be there. No muss, no fuss. Just where do we ship it since it will have to go to an FFL as it is a new serial number.

This kind of customer service vastly exceeded my expectations and previous service with a variety of manufacturers. I will buy Rugers again and let others know about my experience. I contacted their CEO on the website (obviously never heard back), but wanted to let him know his CS folks were making smart choices because word gets around. Honestly, I suspect actions like this are worth more than the company invests because it is REAL advertising that costs them nothing beyond the cost of the repair/replacement (in my case) and probably gets better results per dollar than paying an advertising company. I don't know. Anyway, wanted to share this information here based on the "burnt by Ruger" post. YMMV.

[WDW]

I have owned exactly 2 Ruger revolvers. The first was a 4" GP100 that wouldn't go more than a few reloads without jamming up. The only solution was to open the cylinder and clean under the ejector star. Literally after about 30 rounds, the cylinder would start dragging and the gun would literally lock up. The thing just felt out of spec. I tried various factory loads and the gun was always properly lubed and cleaned, but not over lubed. The cylinder release was also extremely floppy and would depress with minimal pressure. The second was an sp101 in .357 that had timing issues. Im sure there are plenty of Ruger Revo's that work. My two failed to meet my expectations. I've never had a bad Smith, therefore, I only buy/use S&W revolvers. I prefer the older pre lock guns, but I wouldn't hesitate to pick up a new one.

[Jared]

I have owned exactly 2 Ruger revolvers. The first was a 4" GP100 that wouldn't go more than a few reloads without jamming up. The only solution was to open the cylinder and clean under the ejector star. Literally after about 30 rounds, the cylinder would start dragging and the gun would literally lock up. The thing just felt out of spec. I tried various factory loads and the gun was always properly lubed and cleaned, but not over lubed. The cylinder release was also extremely floppy and would depress with minimal pressure. The second was an sp101 in .357 that had timing issues. Im sure there are plenty of Ruger Revo's that work. My two failed to meet my expectations. I've never had a bad Smith, therefore, I only buy/use S&W revolvers. I prefer the older pre lock guns, but I wouldn't hesitate to pick up a new one.

My first Smith was a Highway Patrolman that spit lead something awful. I also had one Smith that wouldn't go 3 full cylinders without having to clean under the extractor star. I still look at Smith's when I revo shop because I really do like 'em, in spite of those two (and a couple of other) lemons.

[JAD]

I have owned exactly 2 Ruger revolvers. .

What did Ruger customer service say when you contacted them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[m91196]

I have seen plenty of smiths puke especially new ones. I selected the best 686 SSR at the factory store, took it home and poked around then cleaned out all the blasting media out of it to make the trigger acceptable. For most folks ok is good enough these days

[Rich]

The only revolver problem I've had was with a Colt! (12 S&W 38/357 , 2 GP100 , 1 Colt DS)

It was a minor problem and Colt fixed it fast.

I knew it was common back then for the Detective Special to come with a over torque barrel . I was so mad at myself for not catching it before leaving my favorite GS.

[Dagga Boy]

I think another issue is many people believe that revolvers are more reliable than auto's. I find them "different" in what areas the are reliable in. For pure going to the range and shooting thousands and thousands of rounds with little or no cleaning, the autos shine. Also revolvers tend to see a lot of lead that autos don't. The market figured out early with the quality European semi auto service guns that out of spec, cheap lead reloads were a total no go. With that said, we get upset when revolvers get gummed up after shooting dirty crap ammo. Revolvers tend to be more reliable when left loaded and untouched for years, when bouncing around purses full of God knows what, and ankle rigs. The autos do better with exposed gunk and particularly sand and mud.

When it comes to the Ruger vs Smith it is simple for me. Want to shoot real .357 Magnum for the life of the gun like many agencies did in the revolver days....Ruger, without question. The GP100 was made for large agency issue for a high diet of full power duty ammunition. They are also far more serviceable by the end user armorers. The Smiths tend to be better liked for individual use as they are a bit more refined and tend to have smoother actions. There is give and take with both.

[Robinson]

I dunno, I think it would take a lot of shooting to wear out a L Frame. I'm not saying they are indestructible, but I'd be surprised to find out a GP-100 is a whole lot more durable than a 586.

One advantage the Ruger does have is that it's really easy to install a set of Meprolight tritium sights -- plus you can keep all your original parts. On a Smith, installing the Meprolights means permanently altering your original sights. Dawson does make a tritium front sight blade for S&Ws though.