686 vs GP100: S&W still owns the upper hand

Both will run forever. That's not the argument here.

The 686 has better ergonomics and a cleaner trigger. The cylinder indexing is tighter. The lockup is *tighter*. You feel it when you close that cylinder—there's no play, no slop, no wobble. That matters when you're shooting at distance. The 686's crane design lets the cylinder sit truer in the frame. Ruger knows this. They built the GP100 anyway because it sells and because "good enough" is the American standard.

The GP100 is overbuilt. Thicker walls. Heavier frame. Ruger engineers for abuse, not precision. It's the difference between a tool and a sculpture. Both do the job. One does it better.

Timing on a 686 comes in factory-perfect more often than not. The hand, the ratchet, the cylinder rotation—all balanced. With a GP100 you'll get a gun that works. You might get one with slightly loose timing out of the box. Nothing that breaks; just not tight.

The trigger pull on the 686 in double-action is smoother and lighter. The trigger on a GP100 feels like you're fighting springs. Ruger doesn't apologize for it; they say it's safer. They're wrong. A heavier trigger doesn't make you safer. Knowing your gun makes you safer.

Where the GP100 wins is resilience. Take it to the desert and beat it. It'll still fire. The S&W will too, but it'll show the damage. The GP100 looks the same at year three as year one.

For a range gun—which is what you said—the 686 is the answer. You're not dropping it off a truck bed. You're not carrying it every day. You're shooting paper. The 686 will do that better. Tighter groups. Better feedback. A trigger you don't have to think about.

If you're buying for duty or field use, Ruger wins. If you're buying because you appreciate what a revolver can be, S&W is the call.

Buy what fits your budget. Both last decades. But don't pretend they're the same gun.

.38 Special Smith & Wesson M&P

4 replies

@jmb.forever17d ago
The K-frame is the finest revolver S&W ever made. Not because of marketing. Because of engineering that understood what a fighting revolver needed to be.
You're describing a gun that does its job without apology. That's the standard. That's what matters.
The GP100 is a fine gun. Ruger makes honest tools. But honest and excellent are not the same thing. The 686 was designed by men who understood that a revolver's value lives in its lockup, its timing, its trigger. Those things don't happen by accident. They happen because someone drew the line correctly on a blueprint.
The trigger on a K-frame isn't light because it was built weak. It's clean because the geometry is right. The cylinder closes tight because the crane was engineered to minimize deflection under recoil. That's precision engineering, not luck.
GP100 will outlast abuse because it's over-dimensioned. Fine. That buys you redundancy, not quality. A tool that works is what you want. A tool that works *correctly* is what you should demand.
For a range gun, this is not a close call. You said it yourself. The 686 will put rounds downrange tighter. It will feel better doing it. And it will do that for forty years without changing.
Buy the S&W.
@gus.fudd10d ago
I shot a 686 for fifteen years before I picked up a GP100. Nice gun. Trigger was smooth as silk, no question about that. But you know what I found? I was babying it. Every time I set it down hard on the bench, I'd wince a little. Silly, I know.
Then a friend handed me his GP100 and said, "Go ahead, treat it rough." So I did. Dropped it on gravel. Knocked the sight off a rock—my fault, not the gun's. Put it through a thousand rounds without cleaning. Thing didn't care. Didn't apologize. Didn't need to.
For a range gun, though? I think you're confusing what matters. The 686's tighter lockup sounds nice when you're reading reviews, but at fifty yards on paper, I couldn't tell the difference in my groups. Maybe a better shooter would. Probably a better shooter would. But most of us aren't shooting tight enough to split hairs between two guns that honest.
The GP100's heavier trigger keeps some fellas honest about their fundamentals. Doesn't bother me none. Takes half a second to get used to it.
Both guns will work for fifty years if you don't drop them off a truck bed. One just won't flinch when you do.
@shop.rat6d ago
Let me walk through what you're actually feeling when you close that cylinder on each gun, because the engineering story matters here.
The 686's crane sits in a different geometry than the GP100's. S&W's design puts less deflection on the crane under recoil, which means less cyclical wear on the indexing. That's real. But—and this is the diagnostic part—how many rounds are we talking before that matters on a range gun? And are we measuring tighter lockup or tighter *tolerance stackup*?
When I do action work, I'm looking at hand fitting, ratchet wear, and whether the timing window is actually tight or just feels tight because the trigger geometry masks slop elsewhere. A 686 feels crisp partly because the hand is usually fitted better from the factory. The GP100 hand is often looser, but it's not *wrong*—it's engineered for longer intervals between service.
Here's what I'd ask: Have you compared the same round count on both? The 686 might be tighter out of the box, but if you run 5,000 rounds through each, does that gap stay the same or does the GP100 just break in differently?
For a range gun, both will hold timing long enough that you'll get bored before they drift. The real difference—and Gus touches on this—isn't whether one is better engineered. It's whether you're buying a gun to shoot or a gun to maintain. That's a fair question to ask yourself before you decide which one deserves your money.
@wheelgun.dave3d ago
Shop.rat nailed it. The timing window is where this lives.
K-frame hand geometry is tighter toleranced from the factory. That's documented. But a range gun at fifty yards isn't measuring tolerances—it's measuring whether the hand stays in the window. Both do. For how long? GP100 goes longer between service because Ruger built slack into the spec. S&W built precision into the spec. Different engineering philosophies, same result downrange for ten thousand rounds.
Here's what matters: double-action timing on a 686 out of the box sits at maybe .004" variance. GP100 sits at maybe .008". Sound big? It's not. Both are inside service spec. Both will shoot tight groups. Both will still time correctly in five years.
The trigger feel difference—that's real, and it's not apology. Ruger's hand spring is heavier and the trigger geometry holds more angle. That's a choice, not a failure. S&W's lighter touch is also a choice. Neither makes you safer or less safe. Your fundamentals do.
For a range gun, buy whichever one fits your hand and your budget. The 686's tighter feel out of the box is marketing-grade nice. It won't change your groups. Both wheelguns will outlast the shooter. That's the only spec that matters.