Ruger GP100 or S&W 686

File: 586-4.jpg (1MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x3264px

>>30501254
The Ruger is built like a goddamn tank, incredibly strong and reliable
The S&W is subjectively "nicer" in terms of build and appearance, and IMO has a nicer trigger
Both are fantastic, I chose the S&W but you can't go wrong either way

Ruger is chunky clunky, but cheaper
Smith is smoooove but I don't like the ones with wood grips.

>>30501254
I chose the 686 over the GP100

File: fuck_shit_stack.jpg (455KB, 2880x968px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 2880x968px

Smith and Wesson. This was a demo gun to show the strength of the barrel. Plus, both of my Smith's have ungodly nice triggers from the factory. Ruger makes a solid revolver, but until they make their triggers smoother from the factory, I'll stick to Smith.

>>30501254
Ruger uses thicker but weaker metal in the construction of their revolvers. Smith & Wesson uses stronger metal which allows them to use thinner chamber walls in the designs.

Ruger does use enough metal to allow for SLIGHTLY higher chamber pressures in their revolvers, allowing for the use of SLIGHTLY hotter, or sometimes longer OAL ammo. Does it matter? Maybe not. If you are buying a revolver and you know ahead of time that you need something more powerful than .357 mag, the intelligent thing to do would be to buy a .44 mag handgun instead. Going out of your way to buy a .357 mag handgun just because it can handle ".357 +P" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Ditto goes for their .44 mag revolvers, if .44 mag isn't enough for you. Just get a .460 mag or something similar. Don't go out of your way to buy a revolver just because you can push its limits when the limits are too low for what you want in the first place.

IMO, the more important aspects of a good revolver are things that Smith & Wesson does better: Better trigger, more reliable design (yes, Smiths are more reliable than Rugers, in my personal experience), and overall higher quality feel and operation. I've never had a problem with a Smith revolver, but I've only owned one Ruger revolver that didn't have at least one issue.

>>30501254
>as old as time

>GP100 introduced in 1985

31 years is not that old

>>30501436
Too bad most revolver failures involving strength tend to involve a blown cylinder and top strap.

>>30501556
>(yes, Smiths are more reliable than Rugers, in my personal experience)
Ah if only that were evidence

>>30501254
what about Colt?

I have the GP100 and it's really nice for what it is. Never had any problems with it after ~2k rounds through.

They're not the same, but they're the same. Decide which one you like better if the extra money is worth it to you for the Smith.

>>30501254
>Ruger
no key locks

>S&W
key locks

choice is obvious

File: IMGP1050.jpg (1MB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1280px

>>30503388
>Ah if only that were evidence
You don't really know what that word means, do you? Personal experience *is* evidence. It's just not scientific evidence. And, hey...I'm fine with that. My personal anecdotes are good enough to steer me clear of the brand, for the most part, and prevent me from being parted with too much of my money.

Although, that said, I do occasionally lapse, especially when the price is right. I recently bought a Ruger LCP, just because they are so inexpensive right now, and found that the inside of the barrel, even after extensive cleaning, looked like pic related. This is straight from the factory, and to reiterate what I just said, YES, this is a clean bore; I made sure of that. The roughness you see is from tooling chatter during the manufacturing process. Granted, this particular flaw doesn't affect functioning (and Ruger DID replace the barrel for free, I need to disclaim), but it can also be indicative of how random issues might be more prone to cropping up with Ruger firearms than with Smith & Wessons, due to apparently pretty lax QC guidelines on the guns that Ruger lets out the door.

Not to say that I'll never buy another Ruger firearm. There's a LC9s Pro at my local gun store that has been calling to me lately. But I have had some issues with Ruger revolvers in particular, and I personally know other people who have had the same issues with their guns. Combined with an equal frequency of manufacturing flaws like pic related on their semi-autos (I once owned another LCP where the frame was manufactured out of spec so magazines didn't fully seat in the gun), I really see no reason to specifically choose a Ruger over a Smith revolver when money is not an object.

The ruger may be tougher, but the smith doesn't feel like shit.

>>30504281
I love smith's feel over a ruger any day. For all the memes I've never had a lock fail

>>30502133
>1985 was 528 years ago

Damn time really flies

>>30503902
>literally means nothing
Look, a retard!

File: 1452964365485.gif (676KB, 381x522px) Image search: [Google]

676KB, 381x522px

>>30504385

>>30501254
ruger doesn't have a hillary hole. that's all you need to know.

Get both.

If you cannot afford both at the same time, then flip a coin, and buy the other later.

Get one in 357, one in 44, and then hell, get another in 41 mag just for the giggles.

Become the revolver king.

>>30504308
The locks are stupid but the only problems that have *ever* been reported have involved very heavy-recoiling models, and these were very few and far between.

I would go with a Smith unless you want some massive hunting magnum, in which case the Redhawk or Super Blackhawk Hunter is worth a look.

>>30504425
It looks fucking hideous, enough to make the ugly GP100 more attractive. Some may not care, but plenty of revolver buyers want something that's more than just a bullet slinging tool.

It's also a constant reminder of firearms being slowly neutered by libs. They could have stopped, but nope. They'll keep bowing to political pressure as long as cucks keep buying them.

>>30504425
>means nothing
>smith and wesson and other sellers literally ahve to flip the gun the other way to sell them when marketing them.

>>30506098
>>30503902
>>30506469
At least the lock can be plugged and look halfway decent again. Can't say as much for the lawyer roll mark on every ruger barrel on every model.

File: image.jpg (817KB, 2657x1537px) Image search: [Google]

817KB, 2657x1537px

>>30503423
theyre nice

>>30501556
>Ruger uses thicker but weaker metal in the construction of their revolvers. Smith & Wesson uses stronger metal which allows them to use thinner chamber walls in the designs

cite source.

I've seen the internals of a Smith give up the ghost long before a Ruger. (Security Six vs Model 10)

>>30501254
Flip of a coin to be honest Famicom.

File: 1467541791146.gif (1MB, 179x160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 179x160px

>>30501556
>Ruger uses thicker but weaker metal in the construction of their revolvers
Stop posting.

>>30507194

mfw

get another gun if either of those bother you

>>30507424
Faggot

>>30507424
Best Wesson

>>30507194
Match Champion doesn't have it, and is better than a stock GP100 for not much more.

>>30508607
Was about to post this - a Match Champion beats the 686 in my opinion and the price jump is negligible

>>30501254
I had the same dilemma. Went with the S&W because it fit my hand better. They were that close.

Get the 686+. 7 shots > 6 shots. Was only like $30 more than the regular 686 at my LGS.

>>30504086
kys

>>30510432
This

>>30501436
Holy shit, 8 bullets stuck in the barrel? Whoever didnt notice sticking 6 bullets before reloading and sending another two down the barrel needs a little lesson in gun safety. If it doesnt sound, feel or look right- stop and check things out.

>>30503841
2k rounds- thats just getting broken in. I have a taurus 66 with 15-17k through it. no issues yet.

>>30510919
It was a demo gun Smith and Wesson purposefully squib'd to show the strength of their barrels.

>>30501254

I have both.

Pre-lock Smith>Ruger>post lock smith