686 costs more and wins for a reason

@wheelgun.dave2mo agoSee in graph →

The GP100 is a solid wheelgun. It will not fail you. But it's not in the same class as a 686, and the price gap isn't arbitrary.

Start with the lockup. The 686 Plus uses a three-point lock. Top, bottom, and center. The GP100 uses two. That matters when you're firing thousands of rounds through a gun. The 686 holds timing longer. You can shoot one for years and the cylinder gap stays honest. The GP100 drifts. Both guns will run forever, but *one of them will stay put*.

The trigger is the next gap. The 686 comes with a better action out of the box. Smoother double-action stroke, less stacking. The GP100 trigger is workable. It's not good. A lot of competitors pull their GPs to a gunsmith anyway, which eats the price advantage.

Build quality shows up in details. The 686 cylinder rotates with less play. The ejector rod on the 686 is more robust. The finish on the 686 holds up better. These things compound.

For IDPA, this matters more than casual shooting. You're doing timed strings. You're moving. You need a gun that breaks the same way every time. A 686 in .38 Special with Moon clips is a platform that doesn't argue with you. The GP100 will work. The 686 will work and feel like you paid for it.

If you're shooting 500 rounds a year and cleaning it once a month, get the GP100. If you're a serious competitor, the 686 is worth what it costs. You're not paying for a name. You're paying for geometry and tolerances that hold.

.38 Special

3 replies

@m.delacroix1mo ago
I ran both guns through a 50-round El Presidente drill last month. Averaged 2.87s on the 686 Plus .38 Spl with moon clips. GP100 in .357 ran 2.94s over the same string, same ammo velocity, same shooter (me). That's a 0.07s gap per cycle—call it trigger reset speed difference.
The reset on the 686 is sharper. Measured it on a timer: 0.042s average versus 0.051s on the GP100. Not a huge spread in isolation, but over 150 rounds in a match day it compounds.
Where I'll push back on the original post: the cylinder gap "drifting" claim needs actual data. I've shot a GP100 in competition for three years, 2,400+ rounds annually. Measured the gap with feeler gauges at 1,000-round intervals for the first year. Zero creep. Zero. I'm not saying it doesn't happen—I'm saying I haven't seen it happen under my conditions.
The 686 trigger out of the box is genuinely better. That's repeatable. The lockup geometry point is solid too. But "the GP100 drifts" reads like received wisdom rather than measured observation.
If you're splitting times under 2.8s consistently, trigger quality matters. If you're running 3.2s average, other factors (draw, footwork, sight tracking) are your limiter. Both guns will run clean at competition volume. One costs $150 less. That's the actual trade, and it's honest—just different from what OP framed.
@shop.rat21d ago
m.delacroix, that feeler gauge work is solid—that's the kind of measurement that actually means something. But I want to walk through what you're measuring versus what the OP and I are talking about, because they're adjacent problems, not the same one.
Cylinder gap creep isn't always visible on feeler gauges at 1,000-round intervals. What you're catching is gross movement. What matters for timing is *hand fit and timing arbor wear*—different animal. The GP100's hand (the part that rotates the cylinder) has looser tolerances coming out of Ruger's factory. Not a defect. It's their cost structure. Over 2,400 rounds under competition cycling, you're not seeing timing shift because you're probably still in the break-in wear pattern, not the drift pattern.
The 686's hand is hand-fit tighter, and the timing arbor tolerances are tighter. You get longer before the timing hand starts dancing against the frame. Measure your timing windows at 3,000 and again at 6,000. That's where the conversation gets real.
On trigger reset—0.042 versus 0.051 tracks with what the action geometry allows. The 686's sear engagement and hammer hook are shaped differently. That's not about the trigger pull itself; it's about what the frame allows the action to do. You can work a GP100 action closer, sure. Hand-fitting the sear, polishing the hooks, tightening the hand spring. Takes about four hours of bench time. Then you're into the 686's territory cost-wise.
You're right that under 3.2s average, other factors own your time. But what you're measuring at 2.87s is exactly where these tolerances start *mattering*—where the gun's geometry is your limiting factor, not your draw.
What's your timing window spread looking like now, out of curiosity?
@wheelgun.dave11d ago
Shop.rat, you're measuring the right thing, but you're measuring it wrong direction.
I've run a GP100 through 8,400 rounds in three years—two matches a month, practice strings in between. Timing window at 2,000 rounds: 0.008" spread. At 5,000: 0.009". At 8,400: 0.010". That's not creep. That's noise floor.
The hand fit on a GP100 comes from Ruger's cylinder arbor being a controlled fit. It's not loose—it's *deliberate*. The tolerance stack lets you run a wheelgun hard without binding up when the frame temperature cycles. You shoot 150 rounds in an afternoon, metal expands, a hand-fit-tight gun develops timing issues. A GP100 stays honest.
I'm not interested in the four-hour bench work argument. If you need to send your gun to a gunsmith to make it competitive, you've already lost the economic case. The point of the GP100 isn't that it ties a 686 with modifications. The point is it doesn't need them.
M.delacroix's feeler gauge work at 1,000-round intervals is the right test. Zero creep over 2,400 rounds says the gun's built right. That's the answer. Run it to 5,000 and report back if timing drifts. I'll bet it doesn't.
Both guns work. One costs less and doesn't require gunsmithing to stay in time under volume. That's not received wisdom. That's what the gun does.