S&W 686 Plus vs Ruger GP100

[hulley]

Thanks Mavrick and Darmog, I'll definitely check out those sights. I was also considering the Williams so I have front and rear FO so I'm undecided at the moment. However a Blackhawk in 357 is next and I can always move the front over to it (I think).

Darmog, I'm really diggin those grips! I'm watching a set like those on fleabay now.

Russb, sweet looking GP!

[Rogervzv]

I second (or is it "third") the Williams Fire Sights. Put 'em on my GP100 and really like the sights:

[Mavrick79]

Off topic but did someone say Ultradot Matchdot 2?

[skidder]

Skidder any more info on that set up? At what distances do you shoot with that? What red dot is that?

Since that picture was taken I have switched from a Weaver to a Bushnell Trophy.

I like the Bushnell much better. Finding the Red Dot on the Bushnell was much faster and clearer. I have only been to the range once with the new Bushnell, but WOW what a difference. The wood vcut rests at my range will give you a 2" group at 50 yards. Here is a pic with the new Bushnell Trophy TRS-25. For the price I highly recommend this red dot.

[Golderpuff]

Damn you guys are pushing me over the edge. Maverick79 how do you like that Match dot2? Can you give us a run down on it's performance?

[Carmady]

The seven shot 686+ has a different double action trigger stroke than the typical Smith & Wesson K and L-frame (six shot) guns that I grew up on. It's noticeably different and without pulling punches, I hate it. The 686+ just gets my goat because it looks like the gun I know so well but it doesn't operate in a familiar manner.

I know this thread is a few years old, but I'd like to thank posts like the one above and the search function for saving me a fist full of dollars and a lot of aggravation.

[mk70ss]

I have had both and still have the S&W. Sold the Ruger. For me the 686 was a better gun and I am a big Ruger fan and own several.

[Doc Holliday 1950]

I have 2 revolvers that I will not sell nor trade. My first was a 4" 357 mag Colt Python I bought in 1970 used and my 4" 357 mag Ruger GP 100 NIB.

Even though I now carry a Glock 19 and am not a collector, the Python's a SQ and the Ruger is always ready for use.

[pete2]

Shoot both guns, ignore the price difference, you'll buy the S&W.

[dgludwig]

Quote:
The seven shot 686+ has a different double action trigger stroke than the typical Smith & Wesson K and L-frame (six shot) guns that I grew up on. It's noticeably different and without pulling punches, I hate it. The 686+ just gets my goat because it looks like the gun I know so well but it doesn't operate in a familiar manner.

I'm still shooting Model 686s and my opinion as posited in post no. 40 hasn't changed: the trigger pulls on the Plus version are just as nice as the ones on the non-Plus variants. Try them yourself and see which you like best and choose it if you, unlike myself, can discern any noticeable difference between the two. I'd be the first to concede that a noticeably better trigger pull counts for more than having an extra round on board if it should turn out that you like the non-Plus version better.

[mk70ss]

The trigger pull on my 686Plus is the same as several other 5 and 6 shot S&W revolvers I have.

[Cosmodragoon]

The 686+ comes in a few different lengths but the 5" feels just right in my hands. If you didn't know, you can put the cushy X-frame grips on an L-frame. It makes for the Cadillac of .357 magnum shooting.

Of course, the "they don't make them like they used to" problem comes into play here. The thing that really bothers me is that darn lock hole. It's as ugly as a spray-paint mustache on the Mona Lisa. This totally unnecessary mechanical "safety" feature makes me feel less safe should I ever need it in a real defensive scenario.

So when I put this problem on a scale with any of the things that make a Smith and Wesson better, in any application besides "range only", I end up with the Ruger. The GP100 is a good gun in my experience and I just have more faith in it.

[75218ron]

"The 686+ comes in a few different lengths but the 5" feels just right in my hands. If you didn't know, you can put the cushy X-frame grips on an L-frame. It makes for the Cadillac of .357 magnum shooting.

Of course, the "they don't make them like they used to" problem comes into play here. The thing that really bothers me is that darn lock hole. It's as ugly as a spray-paint mustache on the Mona Lisa. This totally unnecessary mechanical "safety" feature makes me feel less safe should I ever need it in a real defensive scenario.

So when I put this problem on a scale with any of the things that make a Smith and Wesson better, in any application besides "range only", I end up with the Ruger. The GP100 is a good gun in my experience and I just have more faith in it."


I understand they only had a few problems with the very small and light guns with any malfunctions.

[Cosmodragoon]

Perhaps I should have added that in addition to slightly more mechanical faith, I have much less aesthetic and political revulsion.

[Buckeye!]

I lean toward Rugers ,but the 686 is a fine revovler!

[Sudo]

A couple years ago a LGS had a 686 SSR Pro model for sale.

I went into the store to buy it, but found the barrel was noticeably clocked (over tightened).

I realized I could send it to S&W to be fixed under warranty, but buying a defective brand new gun for nearly $1000 didn't seem right.

I walked out with a 4" GP-100 -- and like it fine. No problems with it at all.

And save a few hundred bucks too.

[Evan Thomas]

Necrothread. Closed.