CCW: S&W Model 13 or Ruger Security Six?


PDA






Geister
April 27, 2007, 03:24 AM
I am planning on picking up a small-frame .357 Magnum with a 4" barrel for a CCW piece.

Here is what I've narrowed it down to:

Smith & Wesson Model 13 -- LOVE the smooth DA trigger that's possible on the Smith. That's a huge plus for me. I'd prefer adjustable sights but this may not matter on a CCW piece. I haven't decided on the Model 13 yet because I am worried about the durability. I shoot a lot of hot loads so I'm worried that I will crack the forcing cone. However, I'm starting to shoot more 158s than 125s. I'm also a little hesitant about the fixed sights; I'm worried that a used K-frame with fixed sights might be way off.

Ruger Security Six -- The adjustable sights are a plus. I also like the durability of the Ruger and probably won't worry about damaging the forcing cone like I would on the Smith. Not sure about the DA trigger on a Ruger; never tried one. If I can get the trigger to function as smooth as the Smith without any stacking I'll get the Ruger.

What do you all think? Any insight or suggestions? I don't want to get anything else like the Model 19 since that one's going for investment prices right now.

If you enjoyed reading about "CCW: S&W Model 13 or Ruger Security Six?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Nomad, 2nd
April 27, 2007, 03:46 AM
S&W 65 is a 13 in SS.

S&W 66 is a 13 in SS, with adjustable sites.

coelacanth
April 27, 2007, 04:07 AM
I own colt, S&W and Ruger revolvers and shoot them all. In my experience you will have a hard time duplicating the trigger feel of the S&W Mod 13 in a Ruger Security Six. Both are plenty rugged for everyday service. I believe the sights on the S&W are regulated for factory 158 gr ammo and in my experience that is the load that hits closest to my point of aim. The Ruger Security Six is an excellent weapon but it is no longer in production so at some point parts availability may become an issue. Good luck.

Cosmoline
April 27, 2007, 04:13 AM
I've owned both SS's and 13's and like them both. I prefer the Six overall because it's easier to field strip and has a frame design that suits my hand somewhat better. But it's a close thing--both are excellent sidearms. Though most folks opt for the 2" to 3" range for CCW. Remember the Speed Six is the same as the Security but with fixed sights.

ArchAngelCD
April 27, 2007, 04:59 AM
Geister,
Like Cosmoline said, a 2"-3" would be better as a carry since a 4" barrel is a little long. I have a Ruger Service-Six (like the Speed-Six but with a Square Butt) with a 2.75" barrel and it is small enough to conceal and is a comfortable carry.

The trigger on my Ruger is as smooth as glass but I can't compare it to a M13 because I have never shot one. You should shoot only 158 gr Magnum rounds through a S&W K frames because it's the 125 gr screamers that do the damage. Also, don't worry about the fixed sights since S&W tunes their PIA/POI to 158 gr rounds.

SwampWolf
April 27, 2007, 05:54 AM
Actually, the barrels on the 13/65 differed substantially from those on the 66: the 13/65 models had thicker (heavier) barrels and, except for the "Ladysmith" variant, they were not made with the enclosed underlug that is found on the 66. Finally, though a few were made, you are not likely to locate a 66 with the 3" barrel that is common to 13s and 65s.

I carried and qualified for several years with a 13 and, later, a 65 before my department authorized semi-autos. The original 13 that I used had a wonderful trigger (in both s/a and d/a modes), far nicer than any Ruger I've personally shot. If I carried a revolver concealed again, it would no doubt be a 13 or a 65 with the 3" barrel- it's the best compromise I know of in terms of size/weight/power for ccw use.

earplug
April 27, 2007, 08:57 AM
Both S&W and the Ruger actions can be worked on to smooth them up.
Start looking at what holsters and stocks are available and work for you.
Why not a SP101? if you feel the need for a .357 to carry.

bakert
April 27, 2007, 09:35 AM
Either would be a good choice and for me personally, I like the 4" barrel better in a carry gun. I love the S&W triggers but the Rugers can be slicked up easily. The width of the cylinder is the main problem in concealing one and to me the 4" is just as easy to carry as the shorter barrels plus just a tad more velocity and bit longer sighting plane.

19-3Ben
April 27, 2007, 09:41 AM
If you wanna practice A LOT with what you shoot, especially with heavy mag loads, I'd go for the Ruger.
Otherwise, whatever feels best to you.

Dave Markowitz
April 27, 2007, 10:32 AM
I've owned both SS's and 13's and like them both. I prefer the Six overall because it's easier to field strip and has a frame design that suits my hand somewhat better. But it's a close thing--both are excellent sidearms. Though most folks opt for the 2" to 3" range for CCW. Remember the Speed Six is the same as the Security but with fixed sights.

This pretty much mirrors my thinking. My bedside gun is a Ruger Police Service Six.

The Service Six is the same as the Security Six but with fixed sights instead of the adjustable sights on the Security Six. The Speed Six is the round butt version, though.

The Rugers can have very good triggers once broken in via shooting or dry firing.

Walkalong
April 27, 2007, 10:49 AM
Model 13 or 65 for what you want. I like the Security Six though. Nice guns. :)

colubrid
April 27, 2007, 11:41 AM
M65 Lady smith has a full underlug barrel
http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/standard?pictid={CBC03DC1-687B-4B0E-98BB-2107F091F1D1}&exp=f&moddt=39036.702413588&ssdyn=1


M66
http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/standard?pictid={A77B7DEA-5B72-462B-9243-7FE9A0410EFC}&exp=f&moddt=39174.8014022222&ssdyn=1

The M13-3 is my favorite:
http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/standard?pictid={0BDCC2A7-7F0E-4786-BA38-73AD15191E79}&exp=f&moddt=39191.8678449653&ssdyn=1

Cosmoline
April 27, 2007, 12:05 PM
The Ruger Security Six is an excellent weapon but it is no longer in production so at some point parts availability may become an issue.

As far as that goes, parts breakage is very rare and sending it back to Ruger always an option. That said, Security Six parts are up on ebay all the time and you can get aftermarket spring packs from Midway and elsewhere. Both the Six and the 13 should be very easy for a smith to work on, in the unlikely event something goes wrong with either one.

Geister
April 27, 2007, 05:49 PM
Thanks for all the replies. I already decided that I want a 4" barrel and six shots.

The big issue with me is the trigger. I want a smooth DA trigger with no stacking. If I can work a Ruger's trigger to be almost as good as a S&W trigger without spending a lot of money, I might go that route. I kind of prefer adjustable sights.

But I am leaning towards the Model 13. If I shoot hot 158 loads (instead of 125s), do I really have to worry about the durability of the gun, i.e. the forcing cone? Or will the gun last pretty long?

L-Frame
April 28, 2007, 12:23 AM
Colubrid,

Nice guns! That S&W 13 is pretty, and sure looks familiar.

Dienekes
April 28, 2007, 12:53 AM
I carried 4" Sixes--initially a fixed sighted service Six, later a Security Six--concealed for most of my LEO career. I would still give the Ruger the nod for durability, but hot 125s are rough on forcing cones. Both guns went back for new barrels but that was also after a lot of rounds through them. I still have and carry these guns. They will probably be the last guns I part with.

These days I do not feel the need to pour thousands of hot rounds through my guns. You can get plenty of good practice with a standard .38 spl. load and finish up with .357s. Go to the "ball and dummy" mode for the best practice, least expenditure of ammo, and least wear on the gun.

I am also fond of S&Ws but the Rugers are well nigh indestructible. Probably the best gun they ever made; IMHO and in that of many others, they should never have dropped them. The GP-100 is even tougher but a whole lot heavier and not CCW-friendly for most of us.

colubrid
April 28, 2007, 12:54 AM
L-Frame
Senior Member



Join Date: 12-01-03
Posts: 140

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Colubrid,

Nice guns! That S&W 13 is pretty, and sure looks familiar.





Ya I still can't believe someone let this beauty go.:) ..

..some people:rolleyes:

Trebor
April 28, 2007, 02:53 AM
Thanks for all the replies. I already decided that I want a 4" barrel and six shots.

Have you tried concealed carry with a 4" barrel before? You may be in for a bit of a surprise. I found that the 3" barrel on the S&W M-13 or the M-65 are a heck of a lot easier to carry concealed than a 4" barreled gun.

With a 4" barrel your restricted to either a shoulder holster or strong-side behind-the-hip carry. You'll also need a decent sized cover garmet. With a 3" gun, you can also do appendix carry. I carry in a Alessi Talon IWB in the appendix carry position and can hide a 3" K-frame under a T-shirt. It's also very comfortable. I can't do that with a 4" inch. The extra inch of barrel gets in the way.

Right now I carry a 3" M-65. I also have a 3" M-13, but went for the stainless gun for carry. You really have to watch for rust on the blued guns with CCW.

It's up to you. Just trying to help you out if I can by sharing my experiences. Whatever you do decide, just make sure it works well enough that you actually *do* carry and don't get in the habit of leaving the gun at because it's not comfortable.

Geister
April 28, 2007, 03:39 AM
Yes, I have and I'm still only interested in a 4" barrel. Otherwise I can get a 9mm +P that's smaller, which I probably will eventually as a BUG. I won't do appendix carry if I can carry IWB. Model 13s with the 3" barrel are too hard to find anyway.

I'll look into "ball and dummy" training, thanks Dienekes.

Edit: Oh wait, that's how I learned to begin with and continue to do so, haha.

TallPine
April 28, 2007, 12:22 PM
With a 4" barrel your restricted to either a shoulder holster or strong-side behind-the-hip carry.
Chan eil. I carry my 4" SecSix in a Bianchi owb holster just in front of the side belt loop on my jeans. This holster is a "high ride" so the barrel length isn't that much of an issue. The Pachmayr grip is much more of a problem to keep from showing through an untucked shirt.

Buy your shirts loose and long ;)

Nomad, 2nd
April 28, 2007, 09:21 PM
http://www.forthehunt.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=70717971

This is a Smith and Wesson model 13-3 M&P in .357. Has a 4" barrel, square butt K-Frame, overall condition is excellent, bore is also excellent, comes with pachmayr gripper, gun lock up is tight, heavy barrel. .

Know nothing, just saw it.
$370... no bidders

Croyance
April 28, 2007, 09:58 PM
S&W 66 is a 13 in SS, with adjustable sites.
No, it is a stainless version of the 19.

Marko Kloos
April 28, 2007, 10:21 PM
M13 all the way. Better trigger, faster handling, fixed sights that won't snag and can't get knocked around.

The Sec'y Six is a good gun, but nothing beats a M13 with three-inch tube for carry. The four-incher isn't bad either.

Confederate
April 28, 2007, 10:44 PM
I don't agree. The triggers on the Security-Sixes can be made slick as glass over a single weekend of dry firing. The Ruger also is far more durable and handles every bit as fast as a 13, plus it has an ejector rod housing. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the Smith 13s, a lot, but the stainless Security- or Speed-Sixes are really the way to go on this.

The Rugers are built like a brick outhouse. Cylinders, topstraps, pawls/hands, ejector rods, hammers and triggers — all are more massive.

Even so, I'd love to have a beautiful, pristine 13, but then, I've got a few Rugers kicking around.

Nomad, 2nd
April 28, 2007, 10:49 PM
Croyance: And if we add adjustable sites and an underluged barrel to a 13 what do we get?...


(I'm talking useage/feel here man)

Gustav
April 28, 2007, 11:22 PM
IMHO Smith & Wesson 65 3 inch has better sights and a smoother out of the box trigger and better quality steel it also kicks empties out little better if sticking shells are in the cylinder as the ejector stroke is longer however on some S & W pistols loctite may be required on the cylinder release lever screw at some point in time.
Ruger is easier to field strip does not have a sideplate (more rigid frame design) no small screws to lose, also fewer parts in the whole gun also IIRC Ruger is investment cast and it uses a coil main spring.
I really liike the firing pin setup on the Ruger better than the Smith.
Tough call as both are good guns.
Too bad best feautures of both can't be made into one.

OLD DOMENION
April 28, 2007, 11:26 PM
The S&W Model 13 is a "K" frame.
The Security Six is a very strong SHOOTER. If you choose the Security Six you will need after market grips [for control] and a Wolf spring kit. www.gunsprings.

Cosmoline
April 29, 2007, 01:09 AM
I haven't found that Sixes need the Wolf kits. Unlike SP's and GP's their pulls aren't too bad. It's a matter of preference.

SwampWolf
April 29, 2007, 03:11 AM
Nomad, 2nd: As I posted earlier in this thread,when comparing them to the Model 66, not only do the models 13/65 lack adjustable sights and fully enclosed underlugs, they have significantly fatter (heavier) barrels. Furthermore, if you're after a 3" barrel, there were VERY few 66s made with this barrel length. Yes, all of the revolvers in question (13/65/66/19) have the "K" frame in common. But the closest comparison between two revolvers having the same configuration but different finishes is the Model 13 and the Model 65 and, as Croyance noted, the Model 19 and the Model 66.

ArchAngelCD
April 29, 2007, 04:34 AM
Geister,
If you intend on carrying a 4" M13 I suggest you buy a good leather belt which is at least 1.5" wide. When I go fishing and carry my 4" S&W M619, I carry it in a DeSantis Speed Scabbard. That holster keeps the gun close to the body for comfort and to aid in concealment. Along with a good belt you will not be uncomfortable. I must say though, carrying my 3" Service-Six in a Speed Scabbard is much more comfortable than the 4" M619. http://www.desantisholster.com/002.html

357wheelgunner
April 29, 2007, 09:16 AM
A 4" fixed sight .357 K-frame is a fantastic carry gun.

The fixed sight S&Ws are usually set to hit POI with 158gr bullets, 125s usually shoot low.

Nomad, 2nd
April 29, 2007, 09:29 AM
Swampwolf: That is odd, because when I held my 3" 13 and my 3" 66 in each hand, before I posted my original post I noted:
The 66 has a 'longer' front site
adjustable rear
underluged barrel

And that my 13 has the 'combat' trigger and hammer.

But that the barrels are NOT drastically different in thickness.
(And when called on it last night I took them out again and checked... nope.)

...What can I say, I did not like revolvers till I found the 3". I have a couple
3" 65's also, and will probably be looking the rest of my life for a 3" 19...

Deanimator
April 29, 2007, 11:55 AM
I have a 3" Model 65 that I got from CDNN last year. It's a great gun. I would have preferred a 3" Model 13, because I just don't like stainless steel. Unfortunately, here in NE Ohio, Model 13s seem simply not to exist on the open market. I haven't seen a SINGLE one in over a year of gunshows.

The 3" 13s and 65s have a fabulous reputation as CCW guns. That's why I bought mine.

The last I heard, CDNN still had 3" Model 65s of various dash numbers.

Nomad, 2nd
April 29, 2007, 12:15 PM
I can't mike it cause my tools are at my buddy's house (He has a lath, tanks... we do our work there... (or should I say he tells me what to do and I provide unskilled labor!)

But here's what I found when comparing:
(2) 65-5's
(1) 66-3
(1) 13-2

(All 3")

The 66 is obviously slightly 'built up' for the front site, and has the underlug.
However, when held muzzle to muzzle with the other 3 revolvers, and when you look at the muzzles side by side it is apparent that the 66's barrel is somewhat thinner than the 65 and 13. (To compensate for the site is my guess.)
-I didn't notace this when looking at them from the top, it is only when looking down the muzzles that I noticed.

It is however unnotacable when you go to shoot the revolver.
(The way it feels which is what this discussion was all about I think.)

-Thanks for pointing it out to me however, it's interesting, but as I said at least to me it makes no difference in the 'shootability', maby when I become a much better revolver shooter I will be able to tell.
-I'd be interested if anyone can tell... experences please...?

StrikeEagle
April 29, 2007, 12:27 PM
I have a Smith 66 and a Ruger Security-Six... both 4".

I just like the Ruger more. I've snapped it a zillion times and the trigger (which was nice out of the box) is now fantastic. It just feels better to me than the Smith... and I have the impression that it's a bit more accurate.

Ruger would be my choice.

ArchAngelCD
April 29, 2007, 12:35 PM
The last I heard, CDNN still had 3" Model 65s of various dash numbers.
Deanimator,
Can you please provide a link because when I went to the CDNN site I couldn't find any revolvers for sale.

Deanimator
April 29, 2007, 04:11 PM
Deanimator,
Can you please provide a link because when I went to the CDNN site I couldn't find any revolvers for sale.
1. You have to download their PDF catalog. There are never any guns on the website itself.

2. For some reason, they're not showing handguns in the latest PDF. Call the number on their website.

MTS Cop
April 29, 2007, 04:44 PM
I have no experience with Rugers, but I do own a 4 inch M13. It's a fantastic weapon, wish I could carry as my duty gun. I wouldn't worry about the fixed sights, they've never been a problem for me.

sm
April 29, 2007, 04:57 PM
Marko's post #23 expresses my answer.

bpisler
April 29, 2007, 06:04 PM
Don't forget about grips,there's more grips
available for the smith compared to the
security six.

Croyance
April 29, 2007, 09:11 PM
Nomand, 2nd wrote:
And if we add adjustable sites and an underluged barrel to a 13 what do we get?...Okay, I get the rest of what you are saying. But I do feel these additions change the feel and balance of a gun.

Confederate
April 29, 2007, 09:36 PM
Regarding the quality of steel, Ruger's quality control is superior to Smith's. And about the 13's cylinder, the notches are directly above the chambers. This is strange in that Ruger's cylinder is slightly larger, but its notches are offset, adding even more strength.

The 13 has a beautiful bluing job if it's an earlier vintage and that alone may make getting a 13 the way to go. Sights? The Speed-Six, which is fixed sights, has every bit as good of a sight picture as the 13 (if not better).

A 2.75-inch Ruger Speed-Six may be what you're actually looking for.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=57330&stc=1&d=1177896884

This is a 3-inch Ruger Speed-Six. It's very hard
to beat this gun!


.

L-Frame
April 29, 2007, 09:46 PM
Confederate,

Where did you get that Speed Six. Sweet!. I've never seen a 3 incher, only 2.75's. Is that factory, or did you have a different barrel put on?

Brian Williams
April 29, 2007, 10:11 PM
I have a 3" 13 and a 4" 65, that Speed Six would be a nice addition to my clan. I would love to find a 3" Speed Six in 9mm.

Geister
April 29, 2007, 10:47 PM
Thanks for all the replies. It seems like the opinions are split between each gun. Right now I don't really have a preference for either just yet.

What exactly makes the Ruger trigger inferior to the S&W trigger? Is it just harder and grittier? Or does it stack (increases the trigger pull) during the pull? I don't want a gun for carry if it stacks.

The Ruger is on average about $50 less than the S&W Model 13. Now, if I can polish the trigger on the Ruger myself using a dremel tool and a spring kit to make it almost as smooth as a tuned S&W without spending over $50, the Ruger is still in the running.

I'm definately going to get a 1.5" or even a 1.75" width belt. I'm also starting to buy my pants two sizes larger to accomodate the belt and holster. I'll keep an eye out for a Speed Six as well, Confederate, but you sure can find the Security Sixes easier.

Nomad, 2nd
April 29, 2007, 10:53 PM
Ruger firearms uses an entirely different type of spring than the Smiths.

Confederate
April 29, 2007, 11:12 PM
The Speed-Six (above) was a .38 Spc. that was subsequently chambered for .357. It came with a 3-inch barrel and had rounded grips. The fellow who rechambered the gun is a stickler for tolerances and jacketed bullets dropped into each chamber catch without falling through.

The gun's balance and action are superb. I put in a new spring and extensive dry firing made the action like polished glass.

I hate taking it to the range for two reasons: 1) It gets dirty; and 2) people keep trying to buy it! But it is an astounding gun. Security-Sixes, all in all, were the best .357 magnums in that they were the right size, the right weight and, most importantly, the right price! Bill Ruger said he never made a dime off of them and I believe it.

Geister
April 30, 2007, 03:49 AM
Yeah, but will the trigger pull increase during the pull, Nomad?

StrikeEagle
April 30, 2007, 06:30 AM
Security-Sixes, all in all, were the best .357 magnums in that they were the right size, the right weight and, most importantly, the right price!

Exactly so.

Nomad, 2nd
April 30, 2007, 01:43 PM
Yeah, but will the trigger pull increase during the pull, Nomad?

Hua?
You lost me.

From talking with gunsmiths, (Forgive me if I mess this up, working off of memory, this is not my area of expertise.)
The Rugers type of springs are harder to work on... lighten... (Don't want to get into leaf and coil types... cause that's not where my knowledge is... I imagine google could help.)

Not saying that it cannot be done, it is just that the Smith type of spring is more naturally inclined towards a better trigger pull/working on it from my minimal understanding of the subject.

I'm not the one to ask, but I'll share what info I've got.

Geister
April 30, 2007, 02:52 PM
Yeah, but what I'm asking is if a Ruger's trigger will stack. I have no problems working on a gun's trigger pull but if the inherent design of the gun will cause the trigger to stack, I don't want it.

I mean a heavy trigger pull is okay to an extent as long as it's buttery smooth, but if it stacks, then forget about it.

Confederate
May 1, 2007, 11:37 PM
I have a 3" 13 and a 4" 65, that Speed Six would be a nice addition to my clan. I would love to find a 3" Speed Six in 9mm.
I would love to have a 9mm Speed-Six myself, but they are very, very, hard to find. As I understand it, Ruger produced it primarily to fulfill a contract with the Egyptian police.

Regarding the Ruger's trigger, the pull does increase slightly before firing; however, it's not significant at all. I love Smith & Wessons actions and both Smith and Ruger have astoundingly good actions. Out of the box, no; Ruger has a bit of a rough trigger. But dry firing will make the action as slick as a tuned Smith & Wesson's.

I had a beautiful, unfired Model 13 back in the '70s. I was poor back then, and I wanted a stainless Security-Six with a 6-inch barrel to go with my 4-incher. So I took the 13 down to the local gun shop and did a straight trade. As much as I hated to do it, I got the benefits of stainless steel, adjustable sights and Fort Knox strength. It was a no brainer...then. Had I known that Smith was going to screw up their line of guns in the next few decades, I would have waited. I don't think I ever would have fired the 13 (it was far too beautiful with its gorgeous bluing), but I would have kept it in a drawer for a home defense gun.

nitestocker
May 1, 2007, 11:58 PM
if you want to shoot hot loads like you saidthen defenently get the ruger 180 grs357 will shake a part alot of small frame smiths

REOIV
May 3, 2007, 12:24 PM
For you guys looking for a ruger speed six 9mm I have one listed on gun broker http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=71127691

jad0110
May 3, 2007, 03:03 PM
Just curious, what is the difference in width at the cylinder between a Ruger Six and a K-Frame? I ask because most people say that width (not length) has more impact on how easy a piece is to CCW.

Having held both side-by-side, the cylinder of the Ruger is clearly larger, but I was unable to measure it at the time.

As far as trigger feel is concerned, I do prefer Smiths but have owned a Taurus 66 that was quite excellent (except for a hint of stacking at the end of the pull). I've never owned a Ruger (hope to one day), but I've tried a number of different models at the range or handled them at gun shows, etc. There seems to be a LOT of variance in trigger quality with Rugers: some are Smith quality, some are well, pretty miserable. Just try before you buy!

One day I will get either a 2.5 or 3" K Frame or 2.75 ot 3" Ruger Security/Speed/Service Six. Haven't decided which, both are great guns. If you prefer adjustable sights (which the Security Six has), I'd save a little longer for the Model 19 if they are more expensive than the 13 in your area.

Geister
May 5, 2007, 02:29 AM
jad,

I've seen the same amount of variance with S&W triggers.

From my current understanding, I believe that Ruger never really bothered to smooth out the internal parts, and to compensate for that they simply installed a heavier spring in the gun. So, the result was the heavy, gritty trigger.

That said, I think the Ruger's trigger can be smoothed out and a lighter spring installed to get it pretty close to a tuned S&W. As long as the design of the internals do not cause it to stack, I think it will work great.

I'd rather have a Security Six than a Model 19 because I think the former is a better buy for the money. I considered a S&W Model 13 because I can find one easier than a Model 19.

Diamondback
May 5, 2007, 02:12 PM
I like them both....alot. To my mind....6 of one.....half a dozen the other. I'd buy the first one I came across in good shape at a fair price. Generally the S&W will have the better "out-of-box" trigger, but the Six Series Ruger's can be slicked up easily. I wouldn't feel poorly armed with either; if you're a real revolver fan you will probably end up getting them both....and then desire to add a 4" Colt Diamondback to the safe too !! :)

- Regards

Dot_mdb
May 5, 2007, 09:16 PM
I've had my Speed-Six for 30 years. The trigger has never been worked on and I consider it as good, possibly better than my Smith M-10s. The Speed is not a light gun. It is probably a few ounces heavier than the Smiths however it handles the .357 mag rounds easily.

I think that the Speed-Six is the best looking of the Six series with the older models more attractive than the later ones that had the metal removed behind the recoil shield.

I like my Speed-Six very much but I rarely carry it. It weighs as much or more than a fully loaded Glock 23 and the Glock carries and conceals easier.

Bill

If you enjoyed reading about "CCW: S&W Model 13 or Ruger Security Six?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!