Ruger Security Six questions


PDA






whalerman
September 7, 2011, 03:05 PM
Much has been said about Rugers being made from castings. My question is, are the old Securty Sixes made from castings or are they a forged handgun. Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger Security Six questions" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
steveno
September 7, 2011, 03:08 PM
Ruger frames are investment cast and probably some small parts as well. nothing to worry about

whalerman
September 7, 2011, 03:12 PM
I'm just wondering if that has always been the case, Mr Steve. I remember seeing an interview with Bill Ruger Sr stating that the Security Six was a gun they "never made a dime on". The implication being it cost a lot to produce. I'm trying to learn how that gun differed from later models in being expensive to manufacture. Ruger implied that one of the reasons they discontinued production was this high cost.

mordechaianiliewicz
September 7, 2011, 03:22 PM
In general revolvers are more expensive to make, taking longer to manufacture, requiring more machining processes (even if you have a lot of castings being used), and needing hand-fitting in order to get the timing right.

I wouldn't doubt Ruger didn't make much if any money

whalerman
September 7, 2011, 03:24 PM
I don't think it was an evolutionary process. I think it was something specific to that revolver. The way it was made. I could be wrong. That manufacturing process AND design was discontinued solely because of cost. I could be wrong.

Steve C
September 7, 2011, 03:35 PM
The Security Six's frame was machined steel like any of the S&W's or Colts of that time. It was the first modular assembly US made revolver as far as I know where the action was a completes sub assembly and take down was very simple. Ruger changed to cast frames with the introduction of the GP series.

Blue Brick
September 7, 2011, 06:07 PM
The Security Six's frame was machined steel like any of the S&W's or Colts of that time.

Ruger changed to cast frames with the introduction of the GP series.

Nope-All frames are cast. BTW the cylinder is forged.

BCCL
September 7, 2011, 06:16 PM
Unlike most other handguns, the frame, crane, hammer, trigger, trigger guard and several smaller parts of the Security-Six are produced from chrome-molybdenum steel investment castings. The barrel is a machined forging and the cylinder, which rotates to the left, is machined from bar stock.

http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/ruger-security-six/

DPris
September 7, 2011, 06:36 PM
And besides all that, the Security-Six frames were always cast. :)
Denis

4v50 Gary
September 7, 2011, 07:05 PM
The following parts are not casted: barrel, screws, sights (if any), cylinder. The cylinder is made from round bar stock.

All the remaining parts including the frame are casted.

BTW, I attended their revolver Armourers' School and they'd give us the obligatory foundry and factory tour.

whalerman
September 7, 2011, 08:59 PM
So there was nothing in particular that made this gun more expensive to produce? I wonder why that was the impression I got at the time. Must have been me.

Walkalong
September 7, 2011, 09:07 PM
The Rugers are tough, tough, guns. The Security Six (http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=125880&d=1281659636) is a great gun. It can take more full power .357's than you are likely to shoot in it in your lifetime.

slick6
September 8, 2011, 01:59 AM
Just remember that the Security-Six was Ruger's first double action revolvers-and, since it was a totally new design, Ruger had to start from scratch. So, this had to cost more money than if he'd had his factory already producing double action revolvers.

whalerman
September 8, 2011, 07:44 AM
You guys have given me some great help and information. Thanks to everyone.
I sure do like that gun.

BCCL
September 8, 2011, 07:47 AM
They are great, I've owned about 6 in my life and could kick myself for not keeping at least one of them.

whalerman
September 8, 2011, 07:34 PM
I'm keeping the one I have. There is confusion about grips for it. Mine is the later version, so it is possible to buy grips. The earlier version I hear is amost impossible to find grips for.

madcratebuilder
September 9, 2011, 08:23 AM
Investment cast Ruger or forged S&W, the difference in structural strength is insignificant. All Ruger DA revolvers are cast frames.

Paul7
September 9, 2011, 01:38 PM
The early version had the skinny grips and was very uncomfortable to shoot in .357.

Walkalong
September 9, 2011, 02:38 PM
The grip angle was changed, or raised/lowered, IIRC. It was to help with recoil.


Found some posts about it.

http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthread.php?t=88752

gearhead
September 9, 2011, 09:23 PM
The later guns are quite a bit heavier, too. I have a stainless 2 3/4" Security Six made in '77 and a blued 4" Security Six made in '73 or '74 that still used the 150 series frame. Empty, the snub is several ounces heavier than the 4" version. The extra heft would certainly help with recoil.

masterofchaos
September 9, 2011, 10:33 PM
I just bought a 80s Security Six. I hope to receive it mid next week and fire it that weekend. I will be happy to report. I will say from my research (which is from the couch 98% of the time), Ruger is tougher, the older guns are lighter than the newer by a few pounds (which for me cuts the mustard), and the price is competitive. I have been comparing it to S&W and IF you are truly looking for a .357 then this is the best bet in durability and cost. That's my 2 cents. I'll try to follow up within the next 10 days (praying my purchase isn't a fraud).

OldCavSoldier
September 9, 2011, 11:56 PM
I was told by a then-buddy who worked for Ruger back in the 70's that the BLUED sixes *frames* were from forgings, and the STAINLESS sixes were from castings. The cylinders and barrels were all forgings. I have had no other definitive or authoritative corroboration of that, though. Frankly, I *prefer* forgings but that is just a personal thing. I have heard of no problems with the cast components from Ruger.

Also, the only gun that Bill Ruger never made any money on was the Red Label. He commented in the early 1980's that he "wrapped a Ben Franklin around every one he sold...."

OldCavSoldier
September 9, 2011, 11:58 PM
The later guns are quite a bit heavier, too. I have a stainless 2 3/4" Security Six made in '77 and a blued 4" Security Six made in '73 or '74 that still used the 150 series frame. Empty, the snub is several ounces heavier than the 4" version. The extra heft would certainly help with recoil.
I think the heft of the later gun is due to the design change from forgings to castings...but, that is just a thought...nothing concrete to base it on. I have a 1975 produced 2 3/4 inch six that is heavier than a 4-inch GP100.....

PapaG
September 10, 2011, 08:45 PM
the big expense for an investment cast part is the making of the original pattern..it must lend itself to producing wax models of the part to be made, allow for whatever shrinkage happens when the part is then cast, and be almost "finished" when the part comes out of the ceramic mold...."cere perdue" or "lost wax" is the original term for making these parts. At Caterpillar we made the change from many, many highly intricate machined/heat treated/ground parts to investment cast parts and saved tons of money in the long run...it takes the long run to come out ahead, however.
Rugers were all investment cast as far as frames go. Smith and Wesson, in addition, made many of the Calaway golf drivers/fairway woods using the same process. Ruger also made parts for others. TC Contenders and other TC firearms were largely investment castings.
Nothing to worry about. High quality steel, good sound manufacturing process, fine heat treatment and wonderful quality control. That is why I have over a dozen of the little jewels.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger Security Six questions" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!