GP100 and SP101... as good as S&W or Better?

[ZWolfgang]

I have had S&W 60, 642, 66, and 686 revolvers for many years and certainly they are very fine revolvers indeed, reliable, nice actions, etc. Recently I've been attracted to the feel in the hand of the GP100 and the SP101 and think I may add them to my collection.

Could anyone who knows both lines very well give me a compare and contrast anaylsis? Is the Ruger action as nice as the Smith's or can it be made as nice with a little polishing if it isn't as nice right off the bat?

Is there much of a chance I would be disappointed in anything about the Rugers or are they highly satisfying overall. Even though the Smiths are more costly, I actually prefer the ergonomics of the Rugers... their design justs fit my hand more comfortably and feels better, but that's all I know about them.

 

[Rob96]

I can give you my thoughts comparing the GP and 686. I used to own a 686. While I liked shooting it, I didn't think it was great. I did have a problem with cylinder binding after a few cylinder fulls of magnum loads. The gun was sent back to S&W, but was was returned with the problem.

I then bought a stainless GP-100. Size and weight wise they are almost the same, the GP does give the appearance of being bigger. The feel of the gun is very nice. I love the way it balances in the hand. The factory grip is incredible. Very comfortable and absorbs the recoil vvery nicely.

Accuracy is outstanding with this gun.

The trigger on my GP is nice. Between dry firing and shooting, I like the way it settled in. You can have the internals polished and get a spring pack from Wolff if you so desire to lighten the pull.

As for the SP-101. I like my GP so much, I went and bought a 2.25" Sp-101.

There you go, my $.02.

 

[ZWolfgang]

Thanks Rob. Like you wound up doing, I'd like to buy a GP100 and an SP101.

I've decided on a GP100 with 4" barrel (6" is too long for my use and 2 1/2 is a waste on this frame), possibly in blue since I love dark guns so much and ALL of my Smiths are in stainless.

As a complement to the 4" GP100, do you think a SP101 in 2 1/2 or 3". I'm leaning toward the 3" because it would make virtually no difference in concealability for me and the little extra weight and sighting radius might be nice to have considering the power of the caliber with this smaller frame. What do you think? I go back and forth in my mind between the 2 1/2 and the 3"... it's a tough call.

I really like my Smiths, but the 66 and 686 just don't feel like a good fit in my hand, so I never shoot them. (Most of my shooting is with my 1911's). I think I'll offer the Smiths for sale; they're nearly NIB.

 

[Rob96]

My GP is the stainless 4" model with full lug, and adj. sights. The balance of it is very natural.

I have never handled a 3" SP, so I can't offer anything towards it. Mine is a 2.25", and that is pretty much all I have ever seen around here.

Revolver wise, the GP and SP feel as good in my hands as my Colt 1911's do.

 

[RWK]

Both the Smith L Frame and the Ruger GP100 series are EXCELLENT .357 magnum revolvers. My experiences mirror the “common wisdom”:
> S&W triggers are INITIALLY crisper and smoother;
> While Rugers are more durable.
Significantly, however, Ruger triggers appreciably improve with time AND the 581/586/681/686 are very durable.

I own two Ruger KGP-141s and an SP100, as well as a great, older 2.5 inch S&W 686. They are all terrific, but the KGP-141 is my “always at hand” .357 magnum. If I were compelled to keep only one – and with “tears in my eyes” – I would retain my newer KGP-141.

 

[Majic]

The better fit to the hand could be nothing more than newgunitist. If you are primarily a pistol shooter then in time the Ruger may feel the same as the S&W. There is a radical difference in revolver and pistol shooting.
Revolvers unlike pistols can be drastically changed in the fit to the hand by just a change in the stocks/grips. That's why there are a overwhelming assortment of stocks/grips for the revolver. It can almost be made to fit every hand.
Try other grips before you go to the expense of going to another brand of revolver.

 

[ZWolfgang]

MAJIC... oh I know about newgunitis... I ALWAYS have it!

That said, I've tried both stock and Pachmayers on the 66 and 686 and there's still something about the egros/geometry of the grips to frame which just doesn't align as well with my hand as the ergos/geometry of the Rugers do. I know they're all excellent guns... no complaints about quality, that's for sure.

And yes, newgunitis plays a role too!

 

[JohnKSa]

I'm not a big fan of S&W so I may not be entirely objective...

A well broken-in or polished Ruger trigger is about as nice (maybe not quite as nice) as a good S&W trigger out of the box.

The Rugers are considerably more durable. I've got one that's digested several thousand rounds of the full power 125gr JHP loading with no detectable signs of looseness or wear (other than the trigger is nicer now.) On the other hand, a friend of mine bought a new 686 and had to return it for timing problems twice in the first year--and he's not a high-volume shooter.

Another personal example. I owned a like-new 629 briefly. I got a good deal on it and so it went home with me. A little time spent checking it with the feeler gauges turned it into trade bait. In spite of the fact that it appeared to have been shot very little the endshake was excessive (about .006"). I thought about shimming it, but the resulting cylinder gap would have been up around .01".

Take a look on the forums and try to find someone complaining about shooting a Ruger loose, or having timing problems with a Ruger. Then do the same with S&W--the results should be instructive. Now, you do have to consider that there are a lot of OLD S&W revolvers while Ruger has only been making the GP/SP series for a few decades, so perhaps that's not entirely fair test.

If you are going to practice with .38s and maybe not even do a ton of that, then the S&W is a slicker gun. A bit nicer in appearance and a nicer action.

If your idea of a range trip is a couple of hundred full power magnums and you do that regularly then the Ruger is just the ticket for you.

 

[Brasso]

I like them both. I currently have the new 5" 686+, and it is a nice gun, but I really miss my GP100. I guess it must be the grip, because I shoot it better and it definately feels better in the hand.

 

[tomkatz]

I currently have S&W revolvers, I have owned sp101s and gp100s, I really like them all equally.......that being said, an old gunsmith around here told me once that he had NEVER had a ruger revolver come to him out of time, and he claimed to have worked on probably thousands of various revolvers in his 60 years in the business. I think the rugers are beyond tough, and I am thinking about adding another gp100 really soon........tom

 

[Tom2]

Sp101

Once had an early SP 101 and found it to be very accurate, and liked the sights better than the small J frames. I polished the innards and got a smoother pull. The only disadvantage I could think of is maybe a little heavier than a chief's special. And they did not have a hammerless/bobbed hammer version, so I eventually did the mod myself. Only thing I noticed was on rapid DA fire you could occasionally get an action malfunction on the SP 101. I was not the only one to get that malf. according to some reviews and notes I read. Maybe it was caused by not letting the action fully reset or something, but maybe it's something you should test, unless they have done a mod to fix that problem over the years. Have not had a similiar malf. on the totally different J frame mechanicals. And try Uncle Mikes rubber grips(#59005) on the model 66. That fits my hand better than any other I have tried on it. I don't care for the kind that don't wrap around the backstrap, like Hogue.

 

[JohnKSa]

Tom2,

It's not really a malfunction. The Ruger DA revolver triggers require a full release before they can be pulled for a second shot. If you only partially release the trigger, the trigger will "lock" when you pull it. It will immediately "unlock" as soon as you release it fully and then you can pull it again.

 

[ZWolfgang]

The more I think about it, I think I could be perfectly happy without my 686, 66, and 60. No wonder I haven't fired them in YEARS. And I don't think a GP100 is what I really need either, even though it feels better in the hand to me.

I've come to the conclusion that I already have what I truly believe are the best choices in defensive handguns... Kahr PM9, S&W 642, Colt 1911 in .45 acp and Browning Hi-Power in .40 cal.

I'm definitely going to keep my 642 for dropping in my front jeans pocket or capability of shooting through a coat pocket if necessary. And I may add an SP101 as well, but I don't really need one of those... in that size category, I think a Compact 1911 is a better choice... it's a gun I can definitely shoot more accurately more quickly.

So what do I prefer in place of the 686, 66, GP100 (bigger framed revolvers)?

Colt 1911's in .45 acp
Browning Hi-Powers in .40 cal

For smooth, quickly and very well placed follow-up shots, repetitive shooting, the big revolvers just don't hold a candle to these autos. And I must say that while 1911's can be very reliable indeed, the BHP is Amazingly reliable. I have two BHP's in .40 that I can count on as fully as any wheel gun. Eleven rounds of .40 cal. with remarkably smooth, quick, very well placed follow up shots, reliable as the sun. Man, it's tough for a big wheel gun to compare with that kind of speed, accuracy and firepower.

Shooting a 686 stoked with .357 ammo double action quickly with excellent accuracy is MUCH harder to do with the wheel gun than with the auto. And the capacity is almost half. Yes, the .357 is a more potent round than .40, but not by very much. And I feel the .40 cal bullets can be much better placed much more easily, whereas the more potent .357 bullets are more likely to be misplaced due to the double action movement of the hand and the recoil. Wheelguns are just much harder to shoot under duress quickly and accurately.

I didn't mean to turn this into a wheelgun vs. auto debate, but these thoughts just came to the fore as I was analyzing how I might use the new Rugers I was considering buying in place of the Smiths... I probably wouldn't use the Rugers any more than I use the Smiths. I would probably continue to rely on the 642 and PM-9 for "minimalist" coverage and go for the 1911's and Hi-Powers for bigger gun capacity... until I could get to my Mossy 500 and Winchester Traper in .45 Colt that is.

BUT, that SP101 sure is a sweet little siren. I may still have to pick up one of those just because they're great little wheel guns. And my Smiths? Honestly, as beautiful and slick as they are, I really think I'm just going to find new homes for them... (except for my 642, that is)

 

[mec]

 

[ZWolfgang]

mec... great looking revolvers... that sp101 is especially appealing. Thanks for the pics.

 

[JNewell]

Like you, my past interest and experience with revolvers had not included Ruger DA revolvers. I've been working with two recently, a 1984 Security Six and a 2003 SP101. They're fine guns. Over time, the differences between the Ruger and the S&W have generally faded, but the Rugers are nothing if not durable. That does come at some cost, though, as you'll see if you compare weight and size (J frame vs SP101, K frame vs Security Six). The Rugers are just plain bigger, which should be surprising.

The one thing that I've really been impressed by is the no-tools takedown of the Rugers. The DA Rugers are the design equivalent of the 1911. Dunno whether you'll ever have to strip one in the field, but if you do you'll appreciate the design a great deal.

 

[neal bloom]

I have a 586, a GP100 and a SP101 3". I like them all. The S&W has a nicer trigger than the Rugers. All of them are as accurate as I can be with them. I opted for the 3" SP101 cause I like the balance of the 3" compared to the 2". As for durability it might be a long time before I can say one is more durable than the other.

 

[ZWolfgang]

Neal... if you could only keep one of the three... which one would it be...?

 

[liliysdad]

Rugers absolutely do not appeal to me in any way, save for a 2.5" security/service six. I personaly feel Rugers bigest mistake was the GP/SP series of guns. The Security/ Service Six guns were far more svelte and ergonomice than the GP/SP series, IMO.

As for sheer quality, the Smiths and Colts cannot be rivaled. The Ruger is simply overbuilt, and that is not always a good thing. I also believe that the difference in strength betwwen the Ruger GP and the L-frame is nothing more than a myth. A GP will be stronger than a K frame no doubt, but I think the L-is equally stout.

 

[ZWolfgang]

No doubt Smiths are great guns and the single action drop on them is mighty fine. But after having owned four Smiths for decades (60, 66, 686, 642), personally, when handling the GP and SP revolvers recently, I find the ergonomics of the Rugers make for a more noticibly comfortable fit in my hand. Yes, I've tried stock grips and various Pachmayers, but still, the stock GP and SP just fit like they were designed specifically for my hand. If they are "over built", that doesn't bother me. The smoothness difference in action doesn't seem like very much and could probably be reduced significantly with a little polishing and is probably of less importance to me than the comfort of the fit in the hand. We're really fortunate to have such a great selection of great firearms!

Neal... I'd still like to know which would be your keeper (and why) if you had to give two of them up.