GP100 or 686?
 

I’m torn between a GP100 or a 686 for my new tool.

I’ve shot a 686 a few times and it is silky smooth. I really like the look of the GP100.

Is it worth paying more for a ‘performance center’ or ‘match champion’ version of either?

I really like my 686+, have you looked at those?

What is the plus?

7 shots versus 6, and a few other changes.

Ooh, outstanding! I miss my 686.

I like the looks of the GP but when I got to handle one and try the trigger I lost interest. Just doesn’t compare to a nice smith trigger.

Like my 686+ a lot .

For the money, I love the GP100

I got rid of a GP100 for a 686+. GP trigger cut my finger, not comfortable. When casual, I carry in a desantis pancake holster with a retention strap, you can't see it. Rides high and very tight. It is heavy, which I like.

While I love my various Ruger single actions, from Single Sixes to Blackhawks to Vaqueros to Super Blackhawks to Bisleys, I have little or no use for their double actions. The solid, no sideplate frame is supposed to be "stronger" than traditional Smiths and Colts, but how "strong" do they have to be? What they give up in trigger pull and overall smoothness of their actions is the deal breaker for me. Gimme a Smith any day.

Many years ago I bought a stainless steel 686 that had been worked over to make it into a target shooter for my late daughter. We liked it as the gun shop owner said it was called the "Hog Hunter", very neat name I thought. Very accurate out to 100 yards.
John

Could a GP100 be gone over to improve the trigger, or is it a design issue?

Oh, certainly, the Ruger's action can be improved markedly by someone familiar with them. Most of the "roughness" is attributable to their chosen manufacturing methods, with a lot of relatively unfinished investment cast parts. Remember, Ruger made their name through perfecting the investment casting process, eliminating a good deal of the hand fitting required of other manufacturers' designs. The downside, though, is you can "feel" it in their actions. Take 'em apart, polish 'em up, and maybe add a Wolfe spring kit, and they can be wonderful. Put the same work into a Smith or Colt, however, and they are even wonderful-er. So, yes, some of it is design, I guess, but most of it can be overcome. On the GP 100, anyway...

Their Redhawk is the one that kind of confounds me. There is nothing that can be done with this one, due purely to design issues. It has the oddest trigger and hammer spring arrangement - one spring shares both duties. Clever, I'll give them that, but impossible to lighten the trigger or smooth the action:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1636590194.jpg

About a year ago I bought a 686 with a 6 inch barrel. It feels good in the hand, although I want to change the grip. Because I’ve been working out of town, I’ve yet to take it to the range, but look forward to it.

Edit: I did not know they made a 686+.

There is something very right about a 686. that's my vote.

My OCD cannot stand that "lock" on the newer Smiths, even though nobody really uses it and just ignores it. It definitely is the better gun over the Ruger. The Ruger works, but it has always looked and felt "clunky" to me. The solution for me would be to seek out a good used pre-lock smith. Best of both worlds and a better investment too, if you ever want to sell it down the line.