GP100 vs. S & W 686 vs. S & W 27 vs. YOUR CHOICE

General Firearms Handguns - Revolvers
21

Is there anything wrong with this peening, or is it just cosmetic? I had an old Smith revolver many years ago that had really visibly ovaled edges on the cylinder notches. It shot fine. Was that gun on borrowed time?

Ruger was putting a lot of their casting experience to work in making the gun even ten years ago. Not MIM, but still cast parts that are subsequently machined. I think its held up pretty well. The trigger in the GP is not what you can get out of a Smith but it isn’t bad either.

Ruger has been using investment casting for years (a form of MIM). I could understand if the hammer or transfer bar were MIM that this is asking for trouble, but other non-impact parts don’t worry me as much.

Can anyone give an educated answer as to why this might or might not be inferior?

22

I used to carry a 686 back in the early 90s and never had any problems with it. In fact the only problem with one I ever saw was an ejector rod backing out keeping the cylinder from opening easily. Easily fixed. Easily prevented. They won’t blow up with factory loaded ammo.

I’m not a Ruger revolver fan, but has nothing to do with their construction. S&W actions lend themselves better to action tuning than the Ruger. I have known people who handloaded and preferred the Rugers, but Rugers will still blow up with dangerously overpressured loads. I don’t think the design of the 686’S frame or it being forged instead of cast makes it less durable. All of the revolvers I’ve seen that were blown up from hot loads blew out the cylinder and top strap, not the side plate.

Ultimately it’s a choice to be made based on personal preference, not durability, as durability is a moot point between the two. I prefer the K-frames.

23

The latest GPs have a MIM trigger and hammer. Note the hollow recess in the back of the trigger.

24

Here’s my take. I’ve been a pretty much die hard S&W revolver fan for 25+ years. I learned how to shoot handguns with a S&W 65. I recently have been intrigued by the GP100, just because I was looking for a 3" barrel six shot 357 revolver and the S&W’s fitting this bill have skyrocketed in price. I recently bought a new production 3" GP100, but have not shot it yet. I am very impressed with the fit and finish and trigger pull, much more so than any new production S&W I’ve purchased in recent years. My only complaint about the GP would be the lack of selection of grips available. As much as I dislike Pachmayr grips, they are the best feeling and make the gun point the best I’ve tried so far. The compact Pachmayr (model GP-C) for the GP100 is discontinued, but I was able to seek out 2 sets at reasonable price ($25 ea) while I had seen the same grip selling in eBay for $55-60 (crazy!!!). The gun seems to point high with the Uncle Mikes, stock Hogue, and rubber/wood Altamont (old style factory replicas) I have tried. I’m impressed enough by the GP I’m thinking I may pick up another in 4 or 5" barrel trim and sell off my S&W 681, or maybe pick up a SP101.

25

With the GP100, what made you choose the 3" over the 4" barrel? I keep flip flopping between those two. I like the look of the 4" better, but does the 3" off much more? I’m looking to get one as more of a camping/mountain gun. I’m planning to have the hammer bobbed too

26

Apparently Smith has been using MIM hammers and other parts in their J-frames for some time.

Here is a pretty good explanation of the MIM process from another forum, apparently a reproduced letter from S & W:

http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=340004

I have read with much interest the many comments in this [Smith and Wesson] forum pertaining to MIM, MIM Parts and the use of same in a S&W product. So far I have come away with several impressions and they are, “people in general don’t like/trust MIM parts”, and, “no one has said why.” I will take a stab at this issue and see where it goes.

As background to our decision to use MIM in some areas of our Mfg Process we took a long hard look at our “Life Time Service Policy”. It was clear to us that any change in any of our products such as the use of MIM components had to show equivalent or better performance and durability to those components that were being replaced or the “Lifetime Service” would haunt us forever. The second consideration was to determine if the change was too radical a departure from S&W mainstream design.

For the performance and durability issues we decided that if MIM could be used for the fabrication of revolver hammers and triggers successfully this would truly be an “Acid Test”. There is nothing more important to a revolvers feel than the all-important Single Action that is established between the hammer and the trigger. Mechanically few places in a revolver work harder than at the point where the hammer and trigger bear against each other. If these surfaces wear or lose their edge the “feel” is lost. Initial testing was on these two critical parts.

Over time we arrived at a point where our best shooters could not tell the difference between a revolver with the old-style hammer and trigger and the new MIM components. Special attention was given to their endurance when used in our very light magnum J-frames such as the early prototype 340 & 360 Sc’s. None of our revolvers work their components harder than these small magnum revolvers. Throughout this testing MIM held strong and finally we determined that this change judged on the basis of durability and feel was a good one.

The second area of concern to S&W was our customer’s reaction to this departure from the traditional. Many heated, intense discussions resulted but in the end the decision was made to move ahead with MIM. The issue of cost was only one of the considerations in making this decision. Equally as important was the issue of part-to-part uniformity and the result of this of course is revolver-to-revolver consistency. We found that revolvers that used MIM hammers and triggers required almost no fitter intervention in those areas during final assembly and final inspection and trigger-pull monitor rejection rates dropped markedly on finished guns. From an internal process point of view it appeared a “Winner”.

Let’s shift gears for a moment and talk about the MIM process. It is unclear to me as to the reason for many of the negative feelings on the forum concerning MIM. Typically when people complain and aren’t specific in the reason why, the problem is often created by a departure from the “Traditional”. Perhaps that is indeed what is bothering some people when they view MIM.

The term MIM stands for Metal Injection Molding. It holds some similarities to Plastic Injection Molding and many differences as well. To start we would take a finally divided metal powder. This could be stainless or carbon steel. Today even titanium is being used in some MIM fabrications. We would mix the metal powder and a thermoplastic binder (generally a wax) forming slurry of sorts when heated and inject this mix into a precision mold and finally form what is known as a “green part". This part is roughly 30% larger than the finished part it will become at the end of the process. Interestingly enough the green part at this stage can be snapped in two with simple finger pressure. The green parts are then placed in a sintering furnace filled with dry hydrogen gas and the temperature is brought almost to the melting point of the metal being used. Over time the wax in the green part is evaporated, the metal fuses and the part shrinks 30% to it’s final correct dimensions. At this stage of the process the MIM part has developed 98 to 99%of the density of the older wrought materials and a metallurgy that is almost identical. Dimensionally it is finished and no machining is required. However the job is not yet done and the MIM parts are brought to our heat treat facility for hardening and in the case of hammers and triggers, case hardening. Depending on the particular metal alloy that was used at the start of the process we apply a heat treat process that is the same as would be used if the material were the older wrought style. Final hardness, case thickness and core hardness are for the most part identical to parts manufactured the older way.

Lets look for a moment at how we achieve dimensional precision when comparing these 2 processes. The old parts were each machined from either bar stock or a forging. Each cut and every resulting dimension was subject to machine variations, cutter wear, operator variations etc. If every operation was done exactly right each and every time and the cutter didn’t let you down you would have produced a good part but sometimes this didn’t happen, resulting in a rejected gun and rework or in the worst case an unhappy customer. With MIM parts you must still machine to very high tolerances and your cutters have to be perfect and your machinist has to be highly qualified but all of this only has to come together one time. That time is when the injection mold is made. Typically a mold for this process costs S&W between $30,000.00 and $50,000.00; once it is perfect every part it makes mirrors this perfection and you have, in my view, a wonderful manufacturing process.

Hopefully this description will help us all better understand the MIM process. Please forgive the spelling errors and misplaced punctuation. I have no spell checker on this and the phone continues to ring!

Have a Great Weekend,

Herb [Belin,
Project Manager, Smith & Wesson]

So, does that satisfy naysayers that MIM parts are GTG?

I’m still on the fence, so I’ll watch for other responses.

27

Mine is over ten years old and nearly all the parts on this specimen have an, often small, unfinished surface somewhere with a texture indicating they started life as investment castings. Note these are not MIM parts.

There is a distinction between MIM and investment casting as the processes are different though they both produce castings.

Obviously firearms makers responded to the intense spike in demand several years ago by trying to reduce the labor it takes to make their product. MIM is more prevalent today and producing higher quality parts than it did even a few years ago.

FWIW Smith Wesson is making extensive use of MIM parts today (including hammers)

28

Roger. That is why I said GP and not S&W (that and the lock).

29

I have a older 4" GP also a newer 3" GP with mim parts and a 20 yr. S&W 686. All three have had trigger work done, the S&W has a shorter trigger stroke but all three are smooth. Between the two GP’s I can’t really tell a difference between the two.

30

I’ve run the gamut on revolvers. From Colt Anaconda’s to multiple Smith’s and Ruger’s. I really liked the SP101, but it was snappy and not that fun to shoot. It would leave my hand tingling after a few rounds of high grade .357 (sold it). With that said I prefer a heavy or beefier revolver. I picked up a REAL Ruger Blackhawk .357 Cowboy Action and thats a blast to shoot. Almost feels like a .22, low recoil. I’ve got my eyes set on another Ruger soon, the GP100 variety. I’ve handled a few and really like the size and beefiness of it. Granted its no carry piece, but for nightstand duty it can’t be beat. There is just something about a nice big .357 revolver!

31

I’ve owned both the gp100 and 686. I had traded the gp100 6" 20 years ago for a mak90. I missed it so much I just traded back to the same guy for a 686 4" just 2 weeks ago. I love both guns but I still miss the 6" barrel. I think either would be a good choice but if you go with an older Smith w/ case hardened steel you will never lose money on it, if you don’t get reamed on cost, you will always be able to get rid of it for at least what you bought it for. I know that this is not much of a concern since this is your “old man” gun but I try to always see guns as an investment. (that’s what I tell the wife at least) They have paid many of my mortgage payments in the past when I needed them too and it’s rare I take a loss on them.

32

I have a 686 that has served me well since the late 80s and has thousands of rounds through it, both 38 Special and 357 magnum. The 38s were target loads and the 357s loaded as hot as practical. The pistol was custom tuned when I got it but has been shot so much it has loosened up over the years. It has always worked except for the occasional hard primer, but that was due to the trigger being tuned just a little too light. The 686 is my favorite double action revolver and has held up well under the heavy use, most of it double action. I suppose I really should take this high mileage revolver in to a good smith and have it gone through

The Rugers feel heftier but being cast rather than forged, they have to be to offer the same strength. Their triggers have never felt as refined as the Smith to me. Then again, the Smith trigger doesn’t feel quite as refined as the Colt.

You can’t go wrong with the Model 27. My father had a few, including a Highway Patrol model. It’s size is both it’s strength and bane. It’s a big, heavy piece but it will take on any 357 load you can throw at it. The standard grips are are oversized and it was intended they’d be cut down to fit the shooter’s hand although nobody ever did. Most just replaced them. But once the grips are reduced to a manageable size, the large framed revolver is comfortable to shoot.

The 586/686 with the full underlug barrel became very popular although with the new barrel profile it lost some of it’s weigh advantage. At that time, bowling pin shooting was wildly popular. Shooters felt the full underlugged barrel helped control muzzle rise and recoil and the 586/686 became the pistol of choice. There was a voice or two in the wilderness pointing out the standard barrel profile was more practical for every day carry, but it did nothing to change the mind of the buying public. It’s ironic because the big selling point of the L frame was a 357 in a smaller, lighter package than the Model 27 but better able to withstand heavy use of 357 loads than the K frame. Still, I prefer the smaller size of the 686 although my 6 inch underlugged barrel is probably heavier than a Model 27 with standard barrel would be.

I like shooting the 686. It’s very accurate and the sight picture clean. Between the lower bore line and the Hogue grips, it feels like it rolls less in my hands than other revolvers. Recoil is comfortable, even with hot 357 loads. With it’s tuned trigger and action, the DA pull is smooth and consistent with no stacking at all. Doc, you can’t go wrong with the (pre-lock) S&W L frame. For L frames with adjustable sights look for a 586 (blue steel) or 686 (stainless steel). Fixed sights are designated 581 (blued) & 681 (stainless)

33

I love my 6" GP100 in .357
Bought it to compliment my Marlin .357 lever gun and never thought twice about my decision to go with ruger. Especially for keeping it all stock. I feel the full barrel length underlug improves toughness, accuracy, recoil and last but not least, the looks.

I am however in the market for a .44 mag revolver to compliment my Marlin 44 SS lever gun, and I’ll be looking towards S&W for that.

34

3" is just personal preference for me. I liked that it had fixed sights too.

35

DOC… my 3" SP101 has been a daisy. Absolute rock solid, stout, accurate piece. I did the following to it:
Bobbed the hammer, chamfered/polished the cylinders, installed a Gemini Customs fiber optic red front sight, put on a pair of
EXCELLENT Trausch grips, and dry fired the hell out of it initially. I LOVE 3" revolvers, always have. I use both SPEEDSTRIPS and
the outstanding COMP 2 speedloaders, and life is good my friend.
ADDED: It is in rotation as a carry piece, and also is MY nightstand gun.

36

I’ve owned the Ruger GP and the S&W 686 and give them equal status. Buy the first good deal of either that you find. I also have owned the S&W 27 and 28, which are the larger N frames with the bigger grip. The 686 has the smaller K frame grip size, which is easier to manage. Current N frames now have the K frame grip size. If you shoot double action, I suggest the Smiths over the Ruger. I bet that you end up with both.

You didn’t ask about Ruger Security-Six/Service-Six revolvers(discontinued). They offer a strong, compact medium size choice. It won’t be difficult to find a used but as new one in the $425-450 range–maybe less.

37

I would have all revolvers by the same manufacturer, whichever that is- If no other reason than having the cylinder release catch require the same motion to open. This is assuming that you might be trying to perform a speed reload in a crisis situation.

38

I’ve owned most of the revolvers mentioned in theis thread. The only .357 mag I own today is a minty Stainless steel 4" Security Six that I picked up for a song. It’s much lighter than the 686 or the GP100 and way more durable than a model 19 or 66. Not nearly as sexy though. It lives on a constant diet of Federal 180 grain 357 rounds and has not stuttered once.

39

The 686 is what I know and like. That said the 8 shot 627 looks like a pretty cool option. http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_765955_-1_757775_757751_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y
I think you can get a seven shot 686 theses days. Mr. Smith is an artist! One of his guns would be an outstanding choice.

I don’t care for the release on the Ruger revolvers.

40

My opinion-S&W model 19. The Combat Magnum was the standard service revolver for decades for a reason. Several reasons, actually. Adjustable sights-for some this matters, for others not so much-great ergonomics, easy point-ability, awesome trigger in both single and double action, tough as a tank, and thousands upon thousands produced. If you get a pre 1982 manufacture, they have the pinned barrel and recessed cylinders. For some, this is a big deal. It’s not like they suck after that, but the craftsmanship just screams high quality. This is the only one on this list that I currently own, and I will never part with it.

The model 27 is also a great gun. A little heavier frame than the 19, but other wise pretty similar characteristics. Slightly less recoil on the 27 due to the frame, but the 19 points a little easier, in my opinion. Also, the 27 seems to be a little less plentiful than the 19. All that said, for me, if there was a 27 and a 19 side by side, I would pick up the 19. But I wouldnt feel bad about it if all I had available was a 27. It would be my second choice behind the 19.

As someone else mentioned, a model 13 is a good choice as well. 3 inch barrel with round butt is great for carry, but for your purposes as a nightstand gun those qualities are not as important. It is still a great gun though.

The 686 full underlug barrel is a drawback, at least for me. There is a ton of discussion out there on this. For some, myself included, the weight at the end of the barrel feels awkward. The other side of the discussion is that it reduces rise. For me, it doesn’t feel natural. This would actually be my last choice of those on your list.

The Ruger GP100 is a good gun, but the trigger on a Smith is much better. Smoother and a crisper break. Heavier than a comparable sized smith due to the casting process as has been discussed already. I like Rugers a lot, and I would’t turn down this gun, but it wouldn’t be my first choice. In fact, the Smith 19 or 27 would both be higher on my list than this one.