GP100 in .357
- Thread starter EdInk
- Start date
My GP100 doesn't have a lock (although I've read the new ones do have one, but it's not nearly as much of an abomination as S&Ws).
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=282154
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=282154
Last edited:
rugersp101
New member
I own both. the 686 is more refined in some ways, but obsolete in others. If I had to depend on one of them in the wilderness it would definitely be the Ruger.The GP100 does have some engineering advances over the 686.
1. The front crane locking latch! Big increase in resistance to recoil forces, and a better lock up. The old cylinder rod-plunger lock up is mechanically weaker and CAN be shot loose, even on a Smith 686!
2. No sideplates - a definite strength advantage. Despite the claims of forged steel versus investment casting of the Smith fanatics, their argument is unfounded.
3.The Ruger is designed to be easily taken apart and cleaned, INCLUDING the trigger assembly... In the field! I dare anyone other than a competent S&W gunsmith to COMPLETELY do that to the 686 in the woods!
Bill Ruger was a visionary and a stickler for innovation and durability. He garnered respect from everyone in the industry, INCLUDING engineers at Colt and S&W.
1. The front crane locking latch! Big increase in resistance to recoil forces, and a better lock up. The old cylinder rod-plunger lock up is mechanically weaker and CAN be shot loose, even on a Smith 686!
2. No sideplates - a definite strength advantage. Despite the claims of forged steel versus investment casting of the Smith fanatics, their argument is unfounded.
3.The Ruger is designed to be easily taken apart and cleaned, INCLUDING the trigger assembly... In the field! I dare anyone other than a competent S&W gunsmith to COMPLETELY do that to the 686 in the woods!
Bill Ruger was a visionary and a stickler for innovation and durability. He garnered respect from everyone in the industry, INCLUDING engineers at Colt and S&W.
Because of the differences in trigger geometry the Smith will have a nicer trigger out of the box and can be made even better by a good smith. Ruger triggers can be tuned quite nicely but will never equal a good S&W trigger. (in DA) A well fitted sideplate does not weaken the frame. As far as cleaning in the field there is no reason to tear either gun down to the "trigger assembly" to clean it. I have personally seen far more people "lose" parts out of a Ruger "trigger assembly" in a shop environment than lose parts from a S&W. It is a very different design than a S&W, but superior? No, just different. A 1903 Springfield rifle is an excellent design. So is an M1 Garand.
Last edited:
Willie Lowman
New member
I think you might be a little biased, GP100man. 
I`m not biasd I like all Rugers !!!
But to be honest ,I had a 4" 586 that truely shot as good as any revolver I`ve held in my hands but if ya shot it to any amount ya had to keep a screw driver with ya to titen screws or pry the ejector tab back to open it !!
Now before anyone tells me of remedys to hold screws I`ve turned wrenches all my life & know about the different loc tites , they did`nt hold .
Anyways , the main spring failed & I fixed it & my screwy problem .
Got some COLTS & found em to be delicately timed & what happened when all went wrong
So ,I`ve been banging away with Rugers now for too many yrs. now
But to be honest ,I had a 4" 586 that truely shot as good as any revolver I`ve held in my hands but if ya shot it to any amount ya had to keep a screw driver with ya to titen screws or pry the ejector tab back to open it !!
Now before anyone tells me of remedys to hold screws I`ve turned wrenches all my life & know about the different loc tites , they did`nt hold .
Anyways , the main spring failed & I fixed it & my screwy problem .
Got some COLTS & found em to be delicately timed & what happened when all went wrong
So ,I`ve been banging away with Rugers now for too many yrs. now
I collect S&W and Colt revolvers. Love em. I now have a lot of money sunk into my collection and I spend more time dry firing them then taking them to the range. I have a couple examples that I don't even shoot. They're all safe to shoot, but I don't want to beat them up either.
As a result I also own a GP100 6" (blued) and a Police Six 4" (stainless steel) along with a couple Glocks, but I digress.
The Ruger revolvers are strong. Oh I've seen Rugers with mechanical problems, but the revolvers are very strong and I don't worry about shooting them. In my opinion everybody should have at least a couple handguns that are meant to be shot and that you don't have to worry about.
While my Rugers need to be taken care of (I'm not saying that you should abuse and neglect) I can shoot them and not worry about it. They're working/fun guns.
As a result I also own a GP100 6" (blued) and a Police Six 4" (stainless steel) along with a couple Glocks, but I digress.
The Ruger revolvers are strong. Oh I've seen Rugers with mechanical problems, but the revolvers are very strong and I don't worry about shooting them. In my opinion everybody should have at least a couple handguns that are meant to be shot and that you don't have to worry about.
While my Rugers need to be taken care of (I'm not saying that you should abuse and neglect) I can shoot them and not worry about it. They're working/fun guns.
Clifford L. Hughes
New member
Edink:
Both the 686 and the GP100 are fine revolvers. The GP100, by feel, is a sturdy revolver, but is it superior to the 686? I don't think so. Both guns will be passed on to our grandchildres's children. The nice thing about the 686 is the number of grips available, many more then the GP100. Also, a Smith's actiion can be tuned to shame a Colt Python. As far as accuracy both are equil. The Ruger field strips without tools, the Smith requires tools and a work bench.
Semper Fi.
Gunnery sergeant
Clifford L. Hughes
USMC Retired
Both the 686 and the GP100 are fine revolvers. The GP100, by feel, is a sturdy revolver, but is it superior to the 686? I don't think so. Both guns will be passed on to our grandchildres's children. The nice thing about the 686 is the number of grips available, many more then the GP100. Also, a Smith's actiion can be tuned to shame a Colt Python. As far as accuracy both are equil. The Ruger field strips without tools, the Smith requires tools and a work bench.
Semper Fi.
Gunnery sergeant
Clifford L. Hughes
USMC Retired
All things being equal, the Ruger costs less; and all things are pretty equal, or can be if one polishes the GP100 trigger. (Although one can get a 7rd 686, and at this point one cannot get a 7rd GP100.)
Aesthetically, I prefer the Smiths. Balance and pointability wise, I prefer the Smiths. These are both subjective, though.
From a practical standpoint, it's hard to go wrong either way... and the Ruger still costs less. I'd be less worried about marring the GP100 in an outdoor environment, too.
Aesthetically, I prefer the Smiths. Balance and pointability wise, I prefer the Smiths. These are both subjective, though.
From a practical standpoint, it's hard to go wrong either way... and the Ruger still costs less. I'd be less worried about marring the GP100 in an outdoor environment, too.
2damnold4this
New member
Sue, that is a good looking revolver.
I've owned a couple GP-100s and I've rented and shot a 686 and owned several K-frames in the past. To me, the hand-fit and length of pull of the GP-100 was a better fit to me and resulted in better accuracy than the 686 or any of my K-frames. All of the Smiths were exceptional guns, and I will freely admit that their double-action and single-action triggers were superior to any of the 5 Ruger double-action revolvers I've owned. But I shot my GP-100s better.
However, I'd like to disagree with the (wide-spread) notion that Ruger revolvers can be taken down without tools. Step one of takedown is to remove the grips, and all of the grips on my Ruger revolvers were held on with a screw. I used a screwdriver to remove that screw, and a screwdriver is a tool. I also used a screwdriver to pry out one of the wood grip panels and push the grip cylinder (peg?) through to the other side, removing the second grip panel in the process.
With a naked grip stud, the trigger spring assembly can be taken out with the tiny metal rod that is supplied inside the grips. That part is easy. Taking out the trigger assembly, however, is not easy. On a tight gun, I need an appropriately fitting Allen wrench and a hammer to get that stud pounded in far enough to remove the trigger assembly. The loosest Ruger revolver I ever owned still required me to press hard on an appropriately sized Allen wrench with my hand to unlock the trigger assembly. The manual says to use the trigger-spring group to push on that piece, but yeah, that never worked for me. I've tried.
So, at minimum, I'll need a screwdriver and an Allen wrench to field strip my Ruger revolver in the field. If I'm in an actual field, I will also require a table and chair, and maybe a bright lamp, to fix whatever is ailing my revolver at the time. I assume I'll be replacing a part that failed, so I'll need to have that part handy as well. I will need to know, in advance, which part will fail so I can carry it with me.
A Smith revolver requires two screwdrivers, or one screwdriver with the two tips that are needed. The action is not removable as a single component, but I don't actually see the benefit in removing the entire trigger group as a unit unless you want to hose it down with a cleaner or lube. In that case, it's a handy feature.
However, I'd like to disagree with the (wide-spread) notion that Ruger revolvers can be taken down without tools. Step one of takedown is to remove the grips, and all of the grips on my Ruger revolvers were held on with a screw. I used a screwdriver to remove that screw, and a screwdriver is a tool. I also used a screwdriver to pry out one of the wood grip panels and push the grip cylinder (peg?) through to the other side, removing the second grip panel in the process.
With a naked grip stud, the trigger spring assembly can be taken out with the tiny metal rod that is supplied inside the grips. That part is easy. Taking out the trigger assembly, however, is not easy. On a tight gun, I need an appropriately fitting Allen wrench and a hammer to get that stud pounded in far enough to remove the trigger assembly. The loosest Ruger revolver I ever owned still required me to press hard on an appropriately sized Allen wrench with my hand to unlock the trigger assembly. The manual says to use the trigger-spring group to push on that piece, but yeah, that never worked for me. I've tried.
So, at minimum, I'll need a screwdriver and an Allen wrench to field strip my Ruger revolver in the field. If I'm in an actual field, I will also require a table and chair, and maybe a bright lamp, to fix whatever is ailing my revolver at the time. I assume I'll be replacing a part that failed, so I'll need to have that part handy as well. I will need to know, in advance, which part will fail so I can carry it with me.
A Smith revolver requires two screwdrivers, or one screwdriver with the two tips that are needed. The action is not removable as a single component, but I don't actually see the benefit in removing the entire trigger group as a unit unless you want to hose it down with a cleaner or lube. In that case, it's a handy feature.
Crankgrinder
New member
I own a gp100 exactly like the one sue posted above and i have to say it and the sp101 i carry have certainly made a fan of me! I hope they make them the same always. Almost bought the smith in the 700s but was offered the ruger for 550 plus two boxes ammo and fiber optic sights and a new holster so i took it instead. both are great guns though
I have a 686 with a 4" bbl and a GP100 with a 6" bbl.
They are both very high quality guns. The 686 seems to be a little more refined and has a slightly better trigger. Which is better? I don't think either is better. Both are outstanding handguns and will be passed down to grandchildren when they are old enough to appreciate them.
They are both very high quality guns. The 686 seems to be a little more refined and has a slightly better trigger. Which is better? I don't think either is better. Both are outstanding handguns and will be passed down to grandchildren when they are old enough to appreciate them.
I hadn't realized that... but without meaning to knock the .327 or its fans, I don't have a use for a medium framed revolver in .327... I just don't like the noise or muzzle blast, or the difficulty in finding ammo (that is on the pricey side, too). If I want flash and blast, I'll load .357; I prefer lower velocity 158gr .357, or high-velocity 158gr .38.
For those who like the .327, it's nice that a 7-shot GP100 is available.
For those who like the .327, it's nice that a 7-shot GP100 is available.
Kreyzhorse
New member
Both are excellent revolvers. The S&W has a slightly better trigger but I'm hard pressed to call one better.
Both will last a lifetime if you maintain them well. It really comes down to which one feels best in your hand.
Both will last a lifetime if you maintain them well. It really comes down to which one feels best in your hand.