Originally Posted by
anachronism
I'm surprised the OP hasn't bought something yet. After decades with both a 686 & a GP100, the GP is still awaiting its first issue, and the 686 has been tweaked a few times, and needs a major overhaul. S&W internal parts are surface hardened, whereas Rugers appear to be through hardened. I did the triggers on both guns, and while the Rugers DA trigger pull is a mite longer than the Smiffs, it is at least as smooth as the Smiff, if not a touch smoother. The 686 had a better SA pull from the factory, but the Rugers SA pull cleaned up beautifully. So in the longevity portion of our test, the Ruger wins easily. The 686 is in need of its third hand in roughly 20 years, and the friggin' endshake at the crane and at the cylinder are out again. Both guns live on mid-range loads, and eat the same food. Rugers cast frame is heavier, but uses through pins instead of studs for the hammer & trigger, and that seems to be a big advantage as well. Smiths still using the same basic design they came out with in the late 1800s, and Rugers design is designed using modern materials made in modern factories. Nostalgia only carries you so far in a results driven world.
Thanks for the detailed & knowledgeable review.
* Just Your Average Jewish Redneck *
Participant in Year-Long Gun Fighting Training Program
Competition Shooter in NRA, CMP, IDPA
Past part-time sales at national firearms retailer, Never came close to breaking even!
Bookmarks