Which gun is more durable

[bigtubby]

A friend asked me which gun is stronger the GP100 or a smith L frame like the 686 I really don't know maybe the GP without a sideplate but that smith is pretty heavily built too. What do you think.

 

[Dale53]

I think that it makes NO DIFFERENCE at all! Both of these guns are strong enough. After that, who cares. I don't...

FWIW
Dale53

 

[tek4260]

It would be an interesting study for someone to take a NIB example of both and do a little testing. Take both and completely spray them down with degreaser to remove all lube. Measure all the internal parts and cylinder dimensions(ratchet teeth, OAL, ect) to get a baseline. Then, shoot about 20K rounds thru each dry and remeasure. Would be nice to know which design is more prone to wear. That would tell me more about durability than which one let go first with a full case of Bullseye.

 

[rugerguy]

BOTH of those guns are the 'updated' versions of the otherwise "obsolete" revolvers that preceded them, mainly 357 magnums ,chambered in 38 special frames........(Security Six and Model 19, and their 'stainless' counterparts.......) 'yes, TODAY< the alloys are improved and the smaller frame guns can take the use of a 357 mags, BUT as said above, for HOW long???? me thinks NOT, only time will tell...you'd do well with either of those two choices,built like the proverbial brick outhouse...........

and YES< we have seen Security Sixes and model 19s, shot "loose" to the point they were 'scrap'...............rebuilt and / or replaced at their times.

 

[Swampbilly]

BOTH of those guns are the 'updated' versions of the otherwise "obsolete" revolvers that preceded them, mainly 357 magnums ,chambered in 38 special frames........(Security Six and Model 19, and their 'stainless' counterparts......

I thought the S&W Model 686 was the replacement for the Model 586?

Or is the 686 just the stainless version of the blued 586, which was discontinued? Was the 586 based on the Model 19?

I once had a S&W Model 586, 357 magnum (no dash). Paid $250 LNIB, many years ago. Very accurate shooter right from the box. Surely regret selling that one...only one of two pistols I have ever sold. They commonly sell for $450 - $600 today, when you can find them.

 

[6GUNSONLY]

The 586/686 are just carbon vs. stainless steel versions of the same gun. They are "based on the model 19" only in the sense that the use internal mechanisms similar in design. They are a different frame size (the 586/686 are designated "L" frame guns, the M-19 and M-66 are "K" frames). The original ".357" was built on the even larger "N" frame (same frame as the .41 and .44 magnums and .45 ACP/.45 Colt revolvers). The Models 19 and later (stainless) model 66 are on the .38-sized "K" frame and were introduced in response to lawmen primarily who wanted .357 magnum power in a smaller, lighter package.

Yes, you can probably shoot a K-frame .357 loose with a long, steady diet of magnum loads. No, the average shooter will never do it.

The L-frame guns are built to withstand a steady diet of .357s and would require a tremendous amount of shooting to show appreciable wear. Ditto the N-frame models 27 and 28, and of course, the overbuilt GP-100s.

 

[Snake45]

I think that it makes NO DIFFERENCE at all! Both of these guns are strong enough. After that, who cares. I don't...

FWIW
Dale53

+1. Buy whichever one you like the looks and/or price of the most, and shoot the snot out of it in good health. :wink:

 

[41manor44]

I own one of each and both are stout. The GP is beefier through the frame and cylinder than the 686. Fit is about the same in both with the 686 getting the nod for finish and trigger smoothness. Either one would take several life times to ware out as long as you weren't driving nails with it. Make your best deal for either and just enjoy!

 

[Jimbo357mag]

Where's the Beef?

...Jimbo

 

[Spike12]

I've owned a Smith 19 and currently have a GP....

I've never heard of a Smith folding in half because of the side panel design. I find second guessing engineers with decades of experience and training kind of useless.

Either gun will outlast the average shooter or even LEOs I dare say.

Personal opinions vary; I preferred my 19 to shoot for targets but the GP makes a better club.

 

[BearStopper]

I am one who believes that Rugers are way more durable than Smiths. I had a model 29 that shot loose so I gave up a great trigger in favour of durablity. I still like a nice Smith in a .22 or .38 special but I lost faith in the durability of the S&W magnums. I bought a Security Six and a Redhawk with excellent results from each.

 

[Snake45]

I am one who believes that Rugers are way more durable than Smiths. I had a model 29 that shot loose so I gave up a great trigger in favour of durablity. I still like a nice Smith in a .22 or .38 special but I lost faith in the durability of the S&W magnums. I bought a Security Six and a Redhawk with excellent results from each.

The Smith 29, like the 19, is marginal with full-tilt magnum loads and is definitely NOT set up to handle a limitless diet of them. The L-framed 586/686 series, however, IS intended to stand up to all the magnums you can afford to shoot. :wink:

 

[Ruger4Life]

Rugers get my nod for the ultimate in durability. Like several have said though, most average shooters will never wear out either brand.

 

[keyston44]

In 1985 the very first gun I ever purchased was a Smith 686. I wanted a Colt Python like Starsky's of Starsky and Hutch but couldn't afford the Python. So I settled for the 686.
Anyway, I put from 250 to 500 full power loads through that gun every week for about 3 years. Then I bought a Smith 657 in 41 mag so that gun helped spread the wear and tear over both guns but after about 3 more years both guns started getting loose in the cylinder and the crane started to bend on both guns. The local gunsmith would straighten the cranes for me but I got tired of having them worked on.
I sold both those guns in 1991, bought a Ruger GP100 and a Redhawk in 41 mag and haven't looked back. I don't shoot full power loads now like I did when I was in my 20's and 30's but they both still shoot as good today as they did when I bought them.
I did miss the trigger on the Smiths so when a nice used Smith 57 came along I jumped all over it. It gets shot very little and with only light loads.
I don't have anything against a Smith but my experience is the Rugers will last forever without babying them. Key

 

[texican]

A friend asked me which gun is stronger the GP100 or a smith L frame like the 686 I really don't know maybe the GP without a sideplate but that smith is pretty heavily built too. What do you think.

I have "heard" S&W's use better steel, however the frame of the Smith (around the cylinder) is two pieces with a screw holding it together; the Ruger's frame is one solid piece.

Plus, I hear that ammunition makers frequently use Rugers for testing hot rounds. Probably part cost and part durability in consideration there.

 

[bub]

My own opinion is that, while the AVERAGE USER will never run enough ammo through either too see a difference in longevity, the GP series is definitely stronger than the 686. It will take A LOT of full-house ammo to wear either out, but I think that the 686 will give out before the GP.

Bub

 

[Dan in MI]

I immediately thought of Jimbo's ad when I read the intial posts. (Ialways liked those ads, even though I liked Rugers better)

When silhouette was going strong inthe early 80's you wouldn't see a Smith on the line. Atthat time they weren't built for steady diet a fullpower ammo. Abouthte time of the "beef" ads they were quietly imrpoving the durability.

Now I don't think it matters at all. It really didn't back then unless you shot a lot. Which silhoueters did.

 

[Stoots]

I think that it makes NO DIFFERENCE at all! Both of these guns are strong enough. After that, who cares. I don't...

FWIW
Dale53

+1. Buy whichever one you like the looks and/or price of the most, and shoot the snot out of it in good health. :wink:

+1 to both.

 

[CraigC]

Sounds like folks "hear" a lot of things that aren't true.

Between these two, virtually no difference. For me, vanilla gets no plainer than a stainless steel mid-frame DA .357 and I probably wouldn't take a free one. If I had to choose, I would forego stainless and get a 586. While arguments can be made with regards to the .44's, I'll choose S&W any day of the week over Ruger's double actions. While I own a passel of Ruger SA's, I have seven S&W's to one Ruger DA.

 

[Snake45]

While arguments can be made with regards to the .44's, I'll choose S&W any day of the week over Ruger's double actions.

Me too, unless I was expecting to have to shoot thousands of gut-busting loads out of it, then I'd take the Ruger. But no Ruger .44 DA ever made has half the class of an old-school Smith 29. :wink: (Sorry, fellow Ruger fans.) :?

 

[Dan in MI]

Beauty and the beast......

 

[FergusonTO35]

I'm a big fan of the Smith K-frames in .38, but for .357 I choose the GP-100. Its also way cheaper than the 586/686, new or used.

 

[Snake45]

I'm a big fan of the Smith K-frames in .38, but for .357 I choose the GP-100. Its also way cheaper than the 586/686, new or used.

I have two M19s and two M66s but I hardly ever shoot full-tilt .357s out of them. In fact, I think two of them have NEVER been shot with magnums. I consider them the world's finest .38s. :wink:

 

[Stoots]

While arguments can be made with regards to the .44's, I'll choose S&W any day of the week over Ruger's double actions.

Me too, unless I was expecting to have to shoot thousands of gut-busting loads out of it, then I'd take the Ruger. But no Ruger .44 DA ever made has half the class of an old-school Smith 29. :wink: (Sorry, fellow Ruger fans.) :?

I agree Snake.

There's a 629 Classic in my very near future. Pics to follow!

:wink:

 

[J Miller]

Having shot a S&W Mdl 28 loose three times, and a 25-5 loose twice, and seen a Mdl 19 shot loose AND have the frame twist, I've sworn off buying ANY S&W ever again. When I want to shoot magnums I shoot full house magnums.
When I want to shoot 38s I shoot 38s.
Smiths just will not hold up to use with full power magnum or even heavy use of standard ammo.
It's a 100+ year old design whose designers could have never fantasized what pressures would be required.

Buy the Ruger GP 100 if you want to shoot. Buy the Smith if you want to look at it.

Joe

 

[Flash]

While arguments can be made with regards to the .44's, I'll choose S&W any day of the week over Ruger's double actions.

Me too, unless I was expecting to have to shoot thousands of gut-busting loads out of it, then I'd take the Ruger. But no Ruger .44 DA ever made has half the class of an old-school Smith 29. :wink: (Sorry, fellow Ruger fans.) :?

.
I've got to agree about the aesthetics of the Smith but the bottom line is what purpose the gun will serve. An everyday shooter or a safe queen? My Dan Wessons have side plates and are arguably, more accurate than my Rugers but one piece construction seems to inherently have more strength then two, in anything.

 

[roaddog28]

Hi,
I have both a GP100 & a 686. I love them both. Each one offers something different. The 686 is a stronger revolver than the K frame magnum and will take any factory 357 round in qualities. The trigger is very good especially the pre-locks. Best feature of the GP100 is the value versus a Smith. I feel the GP100 will take more 357s than any medium size revolver made right now plus they are easier to field strip and put back together for the average guy like me. New, they are a better value than todays new 686s. I don't think one is better than the other.
Bottom line, its really a personal decision on which one to buy. I bought both and enjoy the heck shooting them. Right now both of them to me would be a the top of the heap as a all around 357 magnum revolver. Just had to show them off too.
Howard

 

[Snake45]

Hi,
I have both a GP100 & a 686. I love them both. Each one offers something different. The 686 is a stronger revolver than the K frame magnum and will take any factory 357 round in qualities. The trigger is very good especially the pre-locks. Best feature of the GP100 is the value versus a Smith. I feel the GP100 will take more 357s than any medium size revolver made right now plus they are easier to field strip and put back together for the average guy like me. New, they are a better value than todays new 686s. I don't think one is better than the other.
Bottom line, its really a personal decision on which one to buy. I bought both and enjoy the heck shooting them. Right now both of them to me would be a the top of the heap as a all around 357 magnum revolver. Just had to show them off too.
Howard

Good post, Dog! :wink:

 

[buckeyeshooter]

My pick for most durable is the N frame smith and wesson. L frames are ok, but I think the ruger would be more durable than an L frame.

 

[GhosT]

bigtubby,
Owned both guns...

The GP100 is stronger built....but the 686 is well built too.
UNLESS yer using monster loads...both rock and durable.