[CCantu357]

Thinking of buying a Security Six, are these revolvers durable enough to handle full house magnum use? I already have Smith M19 but dont want to wear it out and L-frames are a bit too pricey for me. Would a Security Six be comperable to an L-frame in terms of durabilty?

[pedaldude]

I've got a nice blued one that I'm very happy with, got it in brand new condition and haven't had a chance to shoot Ks of full power magnum loads from it yet. People say while not as strong as the gp100 it is stronger than the S&Ws.

[RON in PA]

If you want to shoot heavy loaded 125 grain 357 loads I'd advise getting either an L frame or a GP100. Suposedly 158 grain 357 loads are easier on K frames.

Ruger did have problems with the Security Six due to 125 grain loads and that's one of the reasons they went to the GP100.

[MrAcheson]

It is my understanding that the Rugers will handle full house magnums much better than the equivalent Smith K frames.

Bill Ruger said there were two reasons for the GP 100 series:

(1) Marketing: Smith and Wesson brought out the L frame to fix the problems they had with the K's longevity. If his company didn't bring out a competing gun, people would assume his revolvers were the weak ones purely because of frame size.

(2) Profit: The profit margin on the security-six, etc revolvers was low. Ruger has publicly stated that the company "never made a dime" on them. The GP100 series went to a new grip frame design (among other things) to reduce production costs.

[Cosmoline]

I've fired everything up to and including 200 grain hardcasts out of the many Security Sixes I've owned with no problems. They are tougher than a K frame Smith and do NOT have a problem with loads light or heavy!

The Colt and Smith fans have long derided the Sixes for various alleged shortcomings. But as the decades roll by the Sixes keep on shooting. More and more of us are realizing what awesome revolvers these are. They have better triggers than later Rugers and are less bulky, but have enormous strength and ease of takedown.

Ruger did have problems with the Security Six due to 125 grain loads and that's one of the reasons they went to the GP100.

Where exactly are you getting this from? Bill Ruger admitted the Sixes simply cost too much to make. He couldn't turn a profit. The GP100 and SP101 simplify the manufacturing process.

[mike101]

I bought my first Security Six 25 years ago. Should have kept it. Sold it to a friend, who is still banging away with 125 gr. loads without a problem. The 6" likes the 125's. Then, I bought a 4". That liked 158's better. I sold that to a friend, also, and he's never had as problem in 20 years.

I, personally, have never heard of any problems with Sec. 6's. Remember, that having a solid frame means it doesn't have to be as big, to be as strong.

I prefer it to the GP. It's less bulky, and I like having a regular grip frame. :)

Buy it. You can't go wrong. I hope it's stainless.

[ronto]

You'll be hard pressed to find a revolver more durable than the Security-Six. Mine has handeled everything I put in it.

[Jim Z.]

it will make a good woods gun. I stoke it with 158 gr. .357 JSP's

I like it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v439/Pathfinder09/HPIM0953.jpgPic:
Mold 29-5 .44 mag;
Security Six .357 mag.;
S&W 642-2 .38 SPL

:cool:

[logical]

Ruger did have problems with the Security Six due to 125 grain loads and that's one of the reasons they went to the GP100.

There was an SP-101 issue with some early versions but that wasn't a durability issue. I've never heard of a Security Six durability issue or an issue with a certain bullet weight....are you sure about this?

Here's a cousin, thrice removed?, to the Security-Six .357. It's a Police Service-Six, DAO, .38 spcl., fixed sights, 4" bbl.
http://www.photopile.com/photos/logical/family/194784.jpg
http://www.photopile.com/photos/logical/family/194782.jpg
http://www.photopile.com/photos/logical/family/194783.jpg

[GRIZ22]

I've never heard of any problems with any bullet weight in Security/Speed Six Rugers.

I have owned 3 (keep going back) with zero problems.

About 25 years ago I helped with testing for a LE agency with the SW M66 and Ruger Security. The test consisted of 10,000 rounds of magnums (both 125 and 158 gr) without malfunctions. These guns were really abused and were shot as fast as we could. We needed padded gloves to help absorb recoil and handle the hot guns. They were claened every 500 rds (the Hoppe's would stem off until the gun was cooled down). The SW was the low bid so they went first. The longest a M66 lasted was 1500 rds and it was out of time. The Rugers took everything dished out and went to 15000 to 20000 rounds before there were timing issues.

I would say the GP100 would probably take more punishment.

[rem1187a]

The security six can handle it. I recently picked one up that was well used but taken care of. The first trip to the range it got a full workout. It took it all and asked for more. As mentioned above the GP100 is also an option. Either one will take the punishment and still be in working condition for your grandkids.

[sfhogman]

I'm sure it'll take anything you care to throw at it. Mine is one of my favorite guns and is actually more accurate with .357 vs. .38 Special. With CDNN rubber target grips it's pleasant to shoot, no matter what the ammo. Being greedy, I wish I had two or three more.
:D
Jeff

[RON in PA]

Re my statement that Security Sixes have had problems with hot 125 grain loads, I got that info from Wilson's biography of Ruger.

I would expect the SS to be tougher than a K frame .357 if for no other reason than the fact that the Ruger's forcing cone area is not weakened as is a Smith's by having the bottom of the barrel thined for yoke clearance.

My personal opinion of the Security Six is that it is a very good revolver, i just bought a 1982 vintage one a few months back. I only intend to shoot 38s though as I don't care for the blast and noise of .357s any more. I'm just an old fart, you young'uns can prove your macho by shooting them. And by-by-the-way the GP100 is a much more comfortable revolver for shooting .357s, best damn factory grip on a revolver IMHO.:)

[Lone Star]

Logical-

Who made that holster?

Thanks,

Lone Star

[LubeckTech]

WHY would a security six have a problem with 125gr loads?? For the money they are probably the best revolver going it is a classic, easy to shoot, accurate and DURABLE. I've owned and shot one (among many handguns) for 25 years and if I had to grab something, for defence, I knew would go bang the security six would be it!!

[Lone Star]

I like the Security series guns in general, but have found many with excessive play in the crane, what amounts to cylinder endshake, even on new ones. I note that when Manurhin in France made their version of the Security-Six, they incorporated a pin that seems to engage the crane when the cylinder is closed. I presume that they decided that the situation needed fixing. (Their gun is the MR-88, not their MR-73, which is more like an S&W with modern improvements.) I have seen the MR-88 only in photos.

When this situation is bad, the cylinder even touches the barrel as the gun is cocked. I think the front crane lock on the GP-100 was intended in part to cure this ailment, which (for some reason) no one has mentioned in print.

Lone Star

[El Tejon]

Have owned a Security Six for over 20 years now. Have shot hot .357s through it without problems.

I think if you did this day in and day out, you might have a problem.

[bigmedicine]

I have only shot hot stuff out my blued Security Six - going on 20 years now, the only thing it has shot has been full power stuff. The thing just keeps working and working - have never, ever had an issue. I just love the thing!

[tube_ee]

I've only got one beef with them. At least in the one I shoot, hot .357s cause the gun to ring like a bell after each shot. Both of the Colts we shoot (6" King Cobra and 4" Tropper Mk III) are much "deader" feeling in the hand with heavy loads. The Ruger has this odd vibration thing going on that makes it a bit less comfortable to shoot with full-snort magnums.

This is with Pachmyers, BTW. With the original wood grips, it's worse.

I've got no issues with the gun on strength, and I've never heard of any such, it's just got this weird thing that it does that bugs me a bit.

It could just be me.

--Shannon

[moxie]

fired all kinds of commercial loads, and many reloads, including really hot whizbang 125 gr. loads. Nary a problem. It also loves light .38 wadcutter loads. I'd also like to have a 3" Service Six. By the way, that problem with certain bullets was indeed with early versions of the SP-101. It was restricted to 125 gr. loads due to OAL. Ruger lengthened the cylinder a tad and no more problems with the 101 either.l

[logical]

Logical-

Who made that holster?

Thanks,

Lone Star

I think it was just an old well-worn Bianchi that I got in trade with another 4" revolver....with that thumb snap, it really isn't well suited for a spurless gun but it seemed like a good companion to the Ruger in the picture. I've since sold it (the holster...not the gun) so I can't give you any more info.

[Confederate]

Stopping the production of the Security-Six was the most bone-headed thing Ruger ever did...well, after the .357 Maximum, that is. The 6-inch SS is ideal for camping, hunting and trail because it's so light without being too light. As for durability, it ranks high there, too. That and the Smith 66 are my two favorite guns for carrying outdoors.

The problem with most .357s today is that they do fine on the range, but who wants to haul them anywhere? The Smith N-frames are actually heavier than the .41 and .44 magnums because the chambers are smaller.

Ruger didn't make any money selling these guns, alas, but if you can find a primo one, I recommend them highly. Dry firing and a new Wolf spring will make the action smooth as ice. And if you have a grinder, you can grind down the grip some and add a Pachmayr round grip. Sweet!

And by-by-the-way the GP100 is a much more comfortable revolver for shooting .357s, best damn factory grip on a revolver IMHO.
It's not so much the shooting, but the hauling. If I'm going to hang out on the firing line, I'll take an L-frame Smith 686 with a 6-inch barrel. If I'm going to go hiking or camping, I wouldn't want the GP100 or the 686. It all goes back to the issue of how far you're going to lug it vesus how much you're going to shoot it. Also, the time it takes you to draw a quick bead on a hostile target. A heavy barrel takes that much longer. And that's where Bill Ruger erred. That marketing factor made it difficult for everyone else and is one reason folks opted for the K-frame. Sure they knew it wouldn't handle full throttle rounds all day, day after day, but it was a calculated decision based on carrying. Shooting a scoped gun is even better, but few people would want to carry that around, either.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=50998&stc=1&d=1168462551

Imagine these rounded grips on a 4- or 6-inch Security-Six. Wow.

[geo57]

The 125 gr. full power .357 load issue was and is in reference to how they tend to be a bit harder on forcing cones in any make of revolver . It has nothing to do with the core strength of any gun, much less the Sec. 6, or how it keeps in time, etc. Realize too that these 125 gr. loads were loaded much hotter by ammo makers in years past .