Since my brother got his GP100, I've been tempted to pick one up myself. They are really sweet. Like others have said, stay away from Taurus. They seem more interested in copying the iconic look of other classic revolvers, while keeping the price low by sacrificing quality.
I have a S&W 686, and my brother has a Ruger GP100. Both are excellent revolvers, and I would recommend either one, however, the Smith does have a significantly smoother trigger. When I was shopping for a revolver, someone explained to me that the Ruger has a stronger frame, and can handle more abuse over time, but the Smith's are more precision crafted and will run smoother. Comparing our revolvers side by side, this seems to be the case.
Honestly...you should probably just buy one of each.
I would attempt to talk anyone out of a Taurus revolver if he desires reliability and a gratifying experience in revolver ownership. Never owned one but have been around several shooting acquaintances who have and they are uniformly unsatisfactory in my view. We're talking metallurgical problems, poor heat-treating or some similar issue.
One fellow's Taurus Model 66 suffered from the bottom portion of the hammer just breaking off inside the revolver. The entire single-action sear broken away. The gun would still function double-action but this break was both unusual and dramatic.
Another persisted in purchasing Taurus revolvers, claiming that they were better values than similar Smith & Wesson models. I had a close association with these revolvers, shooting them on occasion. The actions all felt heavy, rough, and gritty almost as if they were binding. These included both .22s and .357 Magnum models. Then he tried a .44 Special snub, the Model 445. Brand new, it lasted for two cylinders-full of shooting and then bound up. A close examination of the revolver, detail stripped, revealed that the hand had bent. It was straightened and shooting was continued. A couple more cylinders-full of ammo later and it had bent again.
I've owned Smith & Wesson revolvers for many years, it being 38 years since acquiring the first one. More shots have been fired through Smith & Wesson revolvers than any other handgun owned. None has given one minute of trouble including several which have been heavily used and even abused with experimental handloading. Classic Smith & Wessons of traditional design (read that pre-lock and pre-MIM parts) wear in, not out, are smooth when they are new and only get better with time. Double-action triggers are slick and pleasing and no better single-action trigger may be had. I've always been enthused about the Smith & Wesson guns. I know nothing about their current quality or durability. The last new Smith & Wesson acquired was in 1998.
I have a nice Python but its vaunted trigger doesn't do it for me like a good, worn-in Smith & Wesson K-Frame or N-Frame revolver. Several Colt double-action revolvers live around here and Colt is a valued second choice behind Smith & Wesson for me. Unfortunately, Colt has seen fit to discontinue all of their classic double-action revolver models. They are worth seeking out as used revolvers if they are in good condition.
Some Smith & Wesson revolvers that live in the menagerie here.
Top to bottom: Smith & Wessons in .357 Magnum: 6-inch Model 27, built on the large N-Frame, 4-inch Model 586, built on the intermediate L-Frame, 4-inch Model 19, built on the medium K-Frame, and stainless steel 2 1/2-inch Model 66, also built on the K-Frame round butt variant.
A long-snouted N-frame Model 29 .44 Magnum with 8 3/8-inch barrel. This is one of the Smith & Wessons that has seen heavy shooting use from hunter pistol silhouette competition. It has held up to the high volume of shooting with heavy loads without a bobble. These are also common in 4-inch barrel.
Splitting the difference as was suggested above, here's an N-Frame 6-inch Model 57 in .41 Magnum. Of course these could be had in 4-inch guise as well.
