If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
It's a wonderful problem to have but I've got to make the choice between the 686 and the gp 100. I've read great things about both but would love to hear your feedback!
So now you've gone and done it. You started a Ford vs Chevy type of thread! I respect the opinion of those that like the Ruger revolvers and agree that they are built like tanks. and while beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I think that they look like tanks and handle like tanks too. To me, the Rugers all look like they were designed by Fred Flintstone. They are big and bulky and have a primitive appearance about them. Again, this is an opinion and the respected members here who are Ruger fans disagree with me.
I don't own a Ruger revolver but have shot some of them. The reason I own Smiths is that I have shot Rugers. It was my experience that the S&W's shot smoother, had much nicer triggers and sights and I liked the way they handled much better. They just felt more balanced in my hand.
Both are good and reliable guns and will probably last a life time, but I just think the Rugers are butt ugly, cheap, clunky looking guns, with minor exception being the cowboy guns. I think the only thing that looks cool about Ruger is the logo.
Both are good and reliable guns and will probably last a life time, but I just think the Rugers are butt ugly, cheap, clunky looking guns, with minor exception being the cowboy guns. I think the only thing that looks cool about Ruger is the logo.
I have to disagree. It many cases this may be true regarding the S&W vs Ruger comparison. I think towards the 686 vs GP100 debate though, that the Ruger's trigger is better, and the gun looks better. Again, we won't ever agree, and that's fine. I think guns from ANY company can be ugly and cheap, but to say that all of Ruger's guns are cheap, ugly, and clunky isn't fair. Last time I checked, they make A LOT of pretty popular guns. Their prices are cheaper on some things, which I think is better. A 686 for $800? $900? For what? My GP100 was $525 out the door, and it's a better gun.
This post is the perfect illustration of how gentleman can disagree and still be civil. Rep points inbound. I respect your opinion and value your input. You are an asset to the forum and I am glad you are here.
However I paid about $700 for my 686 brand new. Smith revolvers cost a little more because they are better guns with better triggers and sights and clearly the choice of the discriminating shooters.
One of these days we should have a good old fashioned shooting competition. I will shoot my 686 and you can shoot your Ruger. Then I will show you once and for all that you are WRONG!!
To the OP I would suggest that you handle and shoot them both if possible. If you buy the Ruger and change your mind down the road you can always use it as a boat anchor.
One of these days we should have a good old fashioned shooting competition. I will shoot my 686 and you can shoot your Ruger. Then I will show you once and for all that you are WRONG!!
Anytime you want to shoot the 357mags, let me know. I am sure you are a much better shooter than me, so I need some sort of handicap.
Give me a call. I'll bring a K-frame with a trigger job and prove you both wrong.
Thanks for all the input every one! I'm going to my local dealer this week and will handle both the Ruger and Smith. I'll let you know how it turns out!
Thanks for all the input every one! I'm going to my local dealer this week and will handle both the Ruger and Smith. I'll let you know how it turns out!