GP100 or 686 for ESR—what's the actual difference at $600?

m.delacroix and shop.rat both have numbers backing them up, and I'm not here to argue with a Lyman scale or frame wear patterns—those are real observations. The 686's trigger is objectively cleaner out of the box. That's a fact.

But here's where I land on this: you're paying a premium for a gun that will need work sooner if you're actually running it hard. The 686 triggers better at purchase, then drifts under sustained magnum fire, then you're back at a gunsmith anyway. The GP100 shoots heavier initially, but it stays put. So the real cost comparison isn't MSRP—it's MSRP plus the certainty of a trigger job down the line.

If you're buying this for ESR and you're serious enough to ask the question here, you're probably putting rounds downrange. Shop.rat's right about the thousand-round threshold. Cross that, and the GP100's design advantage isn't sentimental—it's practical economics.

I'll concede the 686 feels better in your hand the first time you pick it up. Smoother pull, faster splits out of the box. But "right now" isn't "next year." By then you're either running a heavier trigger on the GP100 or paying to correct drift on the 686. The GP100 just sits there and does its job for longer without visiting a smith. That's not prettier, but it's honest.

DA trigger pulls on these aren't as close as the post suggests. I ran a Lyman scale on a stock GP100 and a stock 686 side-by-side last month: GP100 averaged 9.2 lbs through the first 1.5 inches, then broke at 9.8. The 686 ran 8.1 lbs with a cleaner wall around 8.4.

That matters for split times. On the clock, I'm running the 686's DA string about 0.04–0.06 seconds faster per shot across a five-shot string, measured from trigger press to reset ready. Over an ESR course, that's real time.

Caveat: both guns respond to trigger work. I know shooters who've had the GP100's DA polished down to 8.5 lbs for under two hundred bucks. Once you factor that in, the out-of-box advantage flips. But that's cost and a trip to a smith.

Out of the box, as delivered, the 686 wins on the trigger. Whether that justifies the upfront difference depends on whether you're competing immediately or building the gun over time.

m.delacroix's scale work is solid—that's how you measure it instead of guessing. And yeah, the 686 breaks cleaner out of the box. But I want to circle back on what "longevity under sustained fire" actually means here, because that's where the frame does the talking.

The GP100's frame geometry and material spec were designed for people running magnum loads repeatedly without the gun moving around on them. The hand—that's the part that indexes the cylinder—sits in a tighter pocket on a Ruger. You're also looking at less play in the extractor rod under recoil. After you've fired, say, three thousand rounds of .357 through either gun, the 686's hand can develop a little slop that changes *timing*. Which is to say: your reset point drifts.

I see this a lot when folks bring guns in after ESR seasons. The 686 will shoot loose faster, and then the trigger work m.delacroix mentioned? Now you need to revisit that. The GP100 doesn't do that as much.

So the real question for you: are you running full-house magnum loads, or standard pressure stuff? And how many rounds are we talking annually? If it's five hundred rounds a season of mid-level .357, the 686's frame won't drift enough to matter. If you're running a thousand rounds of hot loads per year, that frame durability isn't theoretical—it's going to keep your gun reliable between trips to a smith.