Checkout this review as these two industy leaders square in a .357 shootout Link to Smith & Wesson vs. Taurus: • Revolver Shootout Taur... Link to Taurus 689 review: • The Smith and Wesson C...
While I'd agree that the stock Ruger front sight is a bit dull, one of the biggest advantages to the GP100 is that the front sight can be changed by anybody who's mechanically adept enough to bend a paper clip in a matter of approximately 2 seconds. Literally, push in a button in the front of the barrel, pull the stock sight out and drop the new one in. If it takes more than 4 seconds you probably rode the short bus to school. Picked up a Hi-Viz fiber optic for my 6" for $32.
i bought a Ruger GP 100. i love it. it is a tank. A Smith is a sportscar, while the Ruger is a badass 4x4. Both are great guns. They just have different strengths.
My first gun was a gp100 and I love it it came with the hogue grips with the ruger stamp, put some yellow crayon on the front sight to fix the visibility problem. Very comfortable gun to shoot, especially with those grips.
That is the Ruger. It has never let me down. I own a 44 mag Super Red, and Black Hawk and have killed many deer with it during hunting season. You can load a Ruger hot because they can hold high pressures and with after market sights, the weapon is a tack driver. IT TRULY IS THE GLOCK OF THE REVOLVER WORD. Just my humble thoughts. I do think all the revolvers are great choices. My favorite is Ruger.
I have several Ruger Revolvers and love them all. Bradley is on point when he mentions the price on Rugers creeping up to almost the same as S&W Revs. My GP100 4" blue was bought for me by my wife back in the 90s and that thing is still chugging with the only modification....wait for it... the sights! Man, they were bad just like you said. They now sport some nice fiber optics. I use two of my Rugers for hunting. The Ruger Redhawk in .41mag and the Ruger Blackhawk in .45 Colt. Haven't bought a revolver in 10 years or so and I am so torn on going S&W or Ruger. I would like something in the smaller frame flavor for carry. Still looking and saving! Great Video and the nice backdrop you have at the range is super welcome to see as it's getting cold on the East Coast now. Keep the Vids coming!
Great comparison. Thank you! One thing about the GP100 is that the front sight is extremely easy to swap out. If it takes more than five minutes, you were goofing around. And there are so many grip designs for it you can make it fit anyone's likes.
I have the same exact no dash pinned and recessed 4 inch barrel 686. "No dash" early model. Beautiful gun. I put rubber hogue grips on mine and have gotten quite used to them but I kept the wooden ones and may switch them back to compare. I worked for an armored car carrier for about 5 months and was qualified to carry my 686.
Decided to do some research on revolvers, as I've only owned semi autos. Came across your videos, and man, very well done. Very informative, and the cinematography is artfully done. Subscribed.
Excellent review! The S&W 686 (Pre-Lock), and the Ruger GP-100 are both damn good quality firearms. I own and love both. If I feel like shooting hot loads, then I turn to my GP-100 which seems to tame the recoil better than the S&W.
I'm a big S&W fan (pre-lock ONLY) but I wouldn't have any problem owning a Ruger GP100. Although the majority of my revolvers are older S&W's, the GP100 has always been a fantastic revolver that can handle any power load you can put through it. As much as I love old S&W revolvers, you had to be careful with older K-frame revolvers when firing a steady diet of full-power .357 Magnum loads, unlike Ruger, which has no such issue. I love my old 4" S&W model 586 but I would welcome a GP100 any time :)
Nice guns, I used to own a Smith model 19 and I really loved it and to this day regret selling it! I have shot the GP 100 and the fact that you can safely carry it fully loaded is a plus and it was a good feeling and shooting gun, I would like either of them. Oh, they sell aftermarket sights.
Great videos man. You stay on topic, keep it informative and entertaining! Ruger series revolvers, with the exception of their LCR line... Have small trigger guards! Gah, I want to shoot the SP's and GP's but that trigger guard smacks the hell out of my first knuckle on my trigger finger! I only experience this with the Ruger. Anyway, small complaint and I'm sure if I wanted to put in the time? It is merely an training issue. Thanks for the video.
Thank you. I found it. My GP100 was made in 2000. it's a nice gun. But the trigger and hammer seem to be loose. I can move them from side to side. A little. Do you have any advice on how to fix this, Thank you
+Thomas Tommy Sounds like your GP has seen a lot of cycling and the surfaces have been wearing unevenly. A gunsmith can easily stone them smooth, and then put shims in the gaps to get rid of any wobble.
This video is very well done. I think Smiths are the standard, but I have a few Rugers, and I’d put them up against each other anyway. Smiths triggers feel a little smoother, but only a little. I like the look of the smiths with the backstrap showing through the grips, but that’s just preference- a good hogue grip on a Ruger is super comfortable to shoot
You can always take some whiteout correcting fluid and carefully paint the front sight to make it easier to see. You could also use yellow craft paint. Take your time & it will look factory made. I did that on a Kel tec.380
That must be the newest of the gp's. I haven't seen one like that yet. Awesome gun for sure. I did trade my GP for an old security six that was in absolutely excellent condition for being produced in 1975. It just seems I much prefer the old nice wood grips to that of the new houge's on the gp's as well and the size difference. The security sixes seem to be built like absolute tanks as well so I do much prefer my security six to the gp I had. Hopefully ruger will revive the security six at some point in the near future that would be awesome!
Would someone please tell me which one is actualy better for someone like me who's looking for a long lasting reliable revolver. I'm tired of scrolling to channels while none of them telling exactly which on is better.
S&W has an adjustable hammer spring that affects the trigger pull. Adjusting screw in the front of the lower grip. Don't know if the Ruger is the same.
Am I wrong or is the 686 barrel canted to the right? May be the camera angle. You S & W guys know what I mean. If you don't, look up canted barrels. I just bought my 686 in Jan of this year and didn't notice that mine was canted until I saw something on U tube about it last month.
Nice Review. I have both GP100 6" and just got the 686+ 6" I hope to do a review on them as well. I have ad the Ruger a while and did a "trigger job" on it myself. Which was easy. for me at least. My current thought with the stock 686 is the trigger pull on it single action is just slightly nicer than the GP100 with the trigger job. but the GP100 wins in the double acting side of things... Much smoother right now. That's a factory new 686 vs a slightly used GP100 though and I polished the GP100 up inside so maybe not a real fair deal...all stock springs though. The trigger shape on the GP100 is more comfortable for me as I generally grip high. But again it is just an observation dry firing it. Fit and finish the nod goes to the Smith all day. My GP100 had a few things I cleaned up in the finish so it looks great now but little nicks and scratches that must have been factory done just nit picking though. The ruger shoots great. I haven't shot the 686 yet but have high expectations as I grew up shooting a S&W Model 19 Combat Magnum. Anyway my 2 cents on the two so far. Why own just one if you can have both.... LOL
I am awed by my Ruger Match Champion (perfect revolver). That said, it's hard to compare Smith and Ruger. They are both excellent. The caliber is excellent. It is not trigger "pull" but trigger "creep" that requires smithing. Not "dual" action but "double" action. A wide variety of ammunition for .357 (and .38 special) (a very versatile pistol). You do not punch out the center of a target until you master: stance, grip, sight alignment, breath control, trigger pressure all while holding 6'oclock (or center depending on your adjustment) It could take a while to punch out the center of the target.
Dang, where were you when I sold my Match Champion? I hate the non-staging trigger. I would take a broken in GP100 every day of the week over the Match Champion.
I think the Ruger came up a whole lot when they started putting on those comfortable Rubber Hogue Grips on their revolvers. On the other hand I think that Smith & Wesson dropped down a Notch when they added on those safety devices on the left side-plate near the Cylinder eject lever. No, one seems to like them and I have heard that they are causing people problems.
Mine came with the Hogue which was awkward for my lady hands. I swapped it out for the old style with the wood inserts and it fits my hand much better.
I added the Ruger store front red sight (actually just a triangle where it does the most good) for minimal cost. Even with my old eyes, it makes aiming a breeze with my GP100.
A 4” stainless GP100 is the first firearm I ever bought in the early 90’s, and still have it. The front site is really meh. I just threw some bright paint on the front ramp. Great revolver. I do like the feel of the Smith triggers. I have a S&W Model 36 .38 Special that is really smooth. Anyway, another difference not mentioned is that the GP100 is cast, and the Smith is forged. I do like the fact that the GP100 can reportedly handle full pressure .357 magnum loads more readily than the Smith. I have several other Rugers I’m quite happy with (10/22 Takedown, SR22 pistol, and an SR762 AR10/.308.
The front sight can be changed on the GP100. The Ruger is supported both in the front of the cylinder and the rear unlike the S&W. Built like a tank and no screws to loosen under recoil. Actions can be tuned by a good gunsmith.
I own both the Ruger GP100 and the S&W 586 with is just the blue steel version of the 686. After taking the Pepsi Challenge and the gun range with these two revolvers it turned out that the Ruger GP100 was the overall winner.
I have 3 inch GP100 which doesn't have the rear site. and like you said it's all preferences. mine has Hogue grip on it and you should look into possibly switching to this grip. the reason I really like the Hogue is because it has the spaces that fit your hand. When I bought mine I was looking at both the one with your grip I think it was Wiles Clap model and I just preferred the way the hogue Grips felt. I don't have a S&W 357 but I do have a 44 mag one and it is nice gun so I'm sure 357 are nice also. neither compare to my Colt Trooper MKIII Lawman 357 magnum. it is by far the best shooting gun I have ever owned. I think Colt really needs to start making revolvers again because they are so sweet. Mine was handed down to me from my father and it was his father's so I don't carry it. I leave it at home locked up. To much sentimental value. If I'm at home and don't plan on leaving I do bring it out because if I need it for home defense it is my 1st choice. nice video though.
I want to like the Smiths, but I can't get my hands on one with a nice trigger pull like yours. Friend of mine and I were recently shooting our relatively new revolvers. My Ruger Super Hawk (less than 200 rounds shot) in .480 has a light, dream trigger pull. My Ruger GP100 (less than 1000 rounds shot) in .357 mag as a big harder, still quite good trigger pull. His S&W performance center (less than 100 rounds shot) in .44 mag had double the pull in single action and it costs twice any of my Rugers. I just don't understand why...
The GP100 Match Champion would had been more comparable to the 686.The resale value of the MC would be more than the normal GP100 because of factory upgrades.I feel the MC is just as well made and dependable as the 686.
i dig revolvers, hardly ever miss target with em....I sporting the SW Model 629 classic 8 in barrel...44 mag...and a Rossi 720 in 44 special....hard hitting, and accurate the 2 are....
Ruger all the way my friend..no screws, triple cilinder lock, hammer spring which is not leaf like Smith.It is a tank and better gun.With Ruger you buy quality and durability , with Smith just a name.
Agreed. That Ruger triple lock-up is a huge advantage. Plus, the Ruger can handle much higher pressure rounds, which the S&W cannot. (Beefier & stronger cylinder, top-strap, parts in the trigger group, crane, and extractor rod.) Some really hot custom rounds say specifically on the box that they are intended only for Ruger revolvers for those very reasons. Smith can sometimes have a slightly smoother trigger out of the box, but after a few hundred cycles, the difference is negligible.
+J Allen Kaiser agree once you get to the more powerful caliber like the Smith and Wesson 500 which is the king of the hill there is nothing that Ruger to come close to so that being said Smith and Wesson has the much more stronger cylinder at the end of the day stronger crane and stronger yolk compare to the Ruger 454 Super Redhawk
+Manuel Silva Well smith and wesson are the one that created that cartridge hence the fact it's called 500 S&W. I'm sure if ruger wanted to build a gun chambered for this it would probably be over built like everything else they make. Rugers will in fact stand up to hotter loads over a longer period of time than the smiths with there's revolvers. Imo the lockup on the rugers is and always seemed tighter to me. Especially if you find ones used in pawn shops. You will see that the rugers are standing the test of time better than the smiths. The smiths seem to loosen up alot faster than rugers. I've heard an old saying that for every time you have to rebuild a ruger you would of had to rebuild the smith 5 times over. Not sure if thats true but I've seen guys that have shot revolvers for 50 years that say that.
KIMO Therapy >>> thanks for the review. With your permission allow me to add the following information. 1) the S&W has a firing pin on the hammer, this is a no-no for carry (or, you only load 5 rounds with the hammer resting down on an empty cylinder), 2) the S&W's handle is going to be too difficult to conceal for carry, 3) the Ruger has superior cylinder lockup; this translates into safety. When your S&W goes boom! on a hot load you may find that it's now in multiple pieces, 4) also not from the "behind shot" looking at the hammer and cylinder from behind the S&W has far less coverage; this means that you're going to get a lot more powder blow-back ... better use gloves!
I have both. 1986 686 and 1998 GP100, S&W wins on trigger pull all day every day. But that GP is a Tank. Love em both. Paired them up with a Stainless marline .357 lever.
+surfing636 Yep, there's a pin just above the muzzle. Press that in, slide the old sight out, keep it pressed in, put the new on in, release and done! Takes longer to type the process than it does to do it.
You call the fact you have to take the trigger group out of the Ruger to remove the cylinder a bad thing. It's the fact the Ruger has more locking points that make this step nessesary. To me this is a plus not a minus.
I own both Rugers and Smiths, J Frame , M10 K Frame, L frame 44 mag and 45acp. Ruger Sp101, SRH in 454 and my favorite 3" GP100 in 357. It's no contest against modern S&W's the Ruger wins. the Ruger is STRONGER (period), It comes apart for cleaning easily, you can change the front sight and with the dual spring action it equals the Smith trigger but after a little work on both the Ruger wins again. The grips are a moot point, most people change them anyway BUT the Smith has the frame backstrap in the grip, The Ruger uses a spud the grip is mounted around so any style grip can be used. Another point for Ruger besides apples to apples the Ruger can be had MUCH cheaper. IMHO section : Shooting my GP100 and a friends M66 Combat Magnum it's pretty much a toss up as far as how they feel and shoot, great quality and performance but I HATE the lock on the Smith and there are real quality problems them, I still don't believe they know how to install a barrel straight. That being said, I believe the Ruger is a lot more revolver for a lot less money than the Smith but watch out, I have another friend that just bought a Taurus M66. WOW, would I like to see a shootoff between these 3, that Taurus is really nice and it's a shooter too for a lot less than the Ruger. Fit and finish is just OK along with the trigger but for a nightstand gun or one to bang around in a vehicle I think the Smith needs to do a little reevaluation of their current products. I would almost take a new Taurus at over half the price a new Smith and not feel bad about it. Just my 2c worth.
"Choo-choo!" Keep that revolver train going! Those Ruger revolvers have blown up in price. I got a new SP-101 in 1999 for $369.00. They're in the high 4's to low 5's now and they're laser etched these days instead of roll marked and they're putting those cheesy MIM hammers on them with the visible seam running through the hammer instead of the old, solid forged hammers. I picked up a 4" GP-100 stainless $429.00 new 10 years ago. Today, they're between $579.00 and $620.00 all day new. You can get a blued model new for $550.00. There was a time when there was a substantial pricing variation between the Smith's and the Ruger's but those days are diminishing as rapidly as American sovereignty. It's a crying shame. Thanks for the video!
usa2012 -Yeah, I see even Bud's is asking high 5's for blued GP's now. I carrumba!!!! I'm not trying to exacerbate your pain, just share this truth...I walked into a store here in Central Florida about 3 years ago and almost fell over when I saw what was in the used case. It was a blue (95-98% imho) 4" GP-100 manufactured in 1987 (according to the Ruger serial # lookup I did after I bought it) The tag price? $300.00- I had the guy shine a bore light in the barrel and it was perfect. That's all she wrote. I still haven't fired it. It's still sitting in the safe. Sometimes I get lucky. Sometimes I don't.
This is one of the more scientific reviews I've seen and happily reaches a conclusion similar to one of my deeply held biases. If a handgun feels 'right' in my hand I will probably shoot it well. If not, I will never shoot it well. That is a completely subjective criteria; if it feels right to me, it may feel all wrong to another person. The moral is that we don't buy without handling the firearm. I don't buy shoes without trying them on and I don't buy handguns without handling them a bit. Not relevant to everyone but for me, Ruger handguns have always felt like a natural extension of my hand.
+koaguilds 3 inch has a bigger muzzle flash, worse recoil and it's louder. I wouldn't complain about having a 3 inch for HD but the 4 inch would probably be a little better.
Reload Hawaii, like your review. I liked the robust construction of the GP 100, liked the refined construction of the 686. I used to have a 6 inch 686 back around 1989 and like an idiot sold it away. I had a 6 inch GP 100 I bought last year, then sold that away too. I am itching to get a revolver again, and was shocked at the price of a new 686 and they are much harder to find, esp here in Commiefornia. The GP 100s are easier to find. Push come to shove, I would lean a little wee bit on the GP 100 because they are cheaper, easier to find, and easier to work on. I enjoyed your review, man. Three thumbs up!
Both are great pistols and made in America. I own the gp100 and love it but one day I hope to own a 686. Can't go wrong with either. The Smith is beautiful no doubt
Just a fine point but it's "double action," not "dual action." Also, about the Ruger front site: As I see at least one other person has mentioned, the Ruger front site is super easy to change out so that really isn't a negative for the gun. It only takes a couple seconds to do because of Ruger's ingenous mounting method so, as far as I'm concerned, Ruger wins hands-down on that issue. I have a firesight on the rear of my GP100 and a fiber optic on the front.
Great video, good facts about size, trigger pull was, grips, etc. the target shooting is highly subjective,UNLESS using something such as a RANSOM rest. Just a nitpicking fact, but I liked your testing, as the average Joe or Josephine, goes. More videos! Good luck in the future, and heck, I can't afford a Colt either. My rich uncle died, but took it with him! Brahahahaha! Am putting you in my subscribe list.
I am fortunate enough to also own both 3” S&W 686 and a Ruger GP100 4.2” which I put tritium night sites on. My wife prefers the Ruger. I have a hard time choosing between them.
Seriously, you think a front sight milled into the barrel, hence not replaceable, is preferable to a front sight drifted into a slot, because the Smith sight has an orange insert?
I have the GP100 in 6 inch and the front sight was terrible when I purchased the weapon. The good thing? You can swap it out in about 30 seconds (if you are slow). The S&W doesn't even look like it's replaceable? The trigger wasn't great, so I got a "trigger job" on it and now it holds it's own against most any competitor. Mind came with the Hogue rubber grips with finger grooves. That makes a big difference on "purchase".
Not a bad video, I own both a S&W 686 Plus 357 Magnum and two Ruger GP-100's in a 4" & 2.5" barrels. Both are great firearms but I prefer my Rugers over my Smith & Wesson. The Ruger can handle much hotter rounds such as Buffalo Bore or Underwood 357 hot rounds. When I shot it through my Smith and Wesson I had to send it in for repair for the cylinder. S &W has a slightly better trigger but durability and everyday carry for any situation I'll take my GP100 all day long. For me it's a guarantee that it will perform when I need it to.
I own both and like them the same. Nice thing is they can usually share the same holsters too. My 686 though feels like it has a much smoother and lighter trigger than the GP100. You rated them the same but the S&W tends to really smooth out over time.
