Security-Six; equal to a K or L Frame?


PDA






CPLofMARINES
June 17, 2013, 11:29 AM
Was wondering if the Security-Six would be similar to
A S&W K or L frame. I own a GP100 as well and the
GP100 seems like a more robust revolver. Love them
Equally as well. Thanks for any input!


SEMPER FI

If you enjoyed reading about "Security-Six; equal to a K or L Frame?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CraigC
June 17, 2013, 11:40 AM
I would say:

Security Six = K-frame
GP100 = L-frame

Cosmoline
June 17, 2013, 12:21 PM
The Six is probably equal to a K+ frame. It handles like a K but has a little more steel and tougher parts. I don't think anyone's done an objective comparison but my bet is the Sixes will tolerate maybe 10-15% more magnum loads before needing a tuneup.

SharpsDressedMan
June 17, 2013, 01:25 PM
What it lacks in strength against the "L" frame, it makes up for in being lighter and easy to carry. It is superior to the "K" frame.

Arizonagunrunner
June 17, 2013, 01:45 PM
CRAIG C was correct in his reply to your post.

The Security Six is as every bit as good as a K-Frame. It leans on the better side at that.
And the GP100 is an L-Frame plus. I'd take the Security six any day for strength. As for looks I do like the Smith K's better.

mavracer
June 17, 2013, 02:07 PM
Size wise the Six series frames are about the size of a K frame strength wise they are more equal to L frame.

Hangingrock
June 17, 2013, 02:24 PM
The investment casting process tends to be increased bulk/size when compared to other manufacturing processes. Is the Security-Six stronger than a Smith & Wesson K frame in all honesty I can’t say that because comparing the size of both may be somewhat misleading? The design of the Security-Six without a side plate was innovative. I had an early production example of the Security-Six. Ruger made an structural shape change to the frame so that the frame would not slip under the web of the hand during double action rapid fire.

CraigC
June 17, 2013, 03:37 PM
Size wise the Six series frames are about the size of a K frame strength wise they are more equal to L frame.
I was thinking strictly about size but I think this is more accurate. Isn't the barrel shank on the Six series larger than the K? Wasn't the Six series pretty much designed to eliminate the shortcomings of the K's?

GRIZ22
June 17, 2013, 04:24 PM
The Ruger 6 Series is vastly superior in strength and durability comapred to the K frame Smith.

I bought a new S&W Model 19 in 1974. I fired mostly 38s but did put about 2000 magnums through it in the 6 years I owned it. it had severe flamecutting and timing issues when I sold it. So much for the virtues of "pinned and recessed". Purely anecdotal but let me go on.

S&W introduced the L frame in 1980. This was after about 8 years of the Ruger 6 being on the scene and establishing its reputation for toughness. Many LE agencies were starting to qualify with duty ammo and the K frame S&Ws were showing they were not up to the task.

I helped testing and evaluation of revolvers being considered for a federal agency in 1981. The only two bidding were S&W with the Model 66 and Ruger with the Security and Service Six. The testing included the ability to shoot 10,000 rds of full magnums with no more than 2 or 10 allowed malfunctions. Minor stuff like loose ejector rods. loose sight screws. etc nothing that would stop the gun from shooting. They were cleaned every 500 rds, simulating a lack of maintenance. These guns were abused during these tests. You needed to pad your hands as you were firing these rounds as fast as you could shoot and reload. The guns got so hot that you had to swab them with solvent to cool them down to clean.

The Model 66 went first as they were the low bidder. The first S&W went out at 400 rds and the longest one lasted was 1500 rds. The Rugers ate up all 10,000 rds with zero malfunctions. We continued to test the Rugers and the first went out with timing problems at 13,000 rds. The rest of them went to 20,000 rds with no malfunctions and at that point they didn't want us to burn up any more ammo.

Someone mentioned a frame redesign on the ruger. That was for the grip frame as the original was designed similar to a SA grip frame. Nothing to do with the durability aspects of the revolver.

I've read that Bill Ruger once said they didn't make a dime on any of the Six Series. they were lowballing the gun's price trying to steal the LE market from S&W.

Ruger brought out the GP100 in response to S&W proclaiming the durability virtues of the larger L frame over the Six Series.

GRIZ22
June 17, 2013, 04:28 PM
Strengthwise I'd rate S&W and Ruger DA 357s from bottom to top J frame, K frame/SP (tied), Six Series/L frame (tied), GP100/N frame (tied), and Redhawk. YMMV.

GRIZ22
June 17, 2013, 04:30 PM
While Ruger frames are cast keep in mind its some form of nodular casting. How strong can that be? Crankshafts are usually nodular cast IIRC.

CraigC
June 17, 2013, 04:30 PM
Someone mentioned a frame redesign on the ruger. That was for the grip frame as the original was designed similar to a SA grip frame. Nothing to do with the durability aspects of the revolver.
They redesigned it for ease of manufacture. Had nothing to do with the grip frame. It's said that they never made any money on the Six series because it was more expensive to manufacture than they thought they could get for them. Nobody wanted to pay S&W prices for a Ruger, even if it was better.

CPLofMARINES
June 17, 2013, 05:02 PM
I kind of figured that, (close to a K frame, way stronger)
Very interesting though. So, if I'm reading all this
Correctly, metallurgy speaking, investment casting as in
Rugers, the end product will have more weight and mass
Therefore adding to its strength.

mavracer
June 17, 2013, 05:06 PM
Isn't the barrel shank on the Six series larger than the K?
Not sure if it's larger or if it's just the fact that the flat spot on the bottom of the forcing cone to clear the crane is eliminated on the Ruger's design makes the Ruger less prone to cracking the forcing cone.
Wasn't the Six series pretty much designed to eliminate the shortcomings of the K's?
In Smith's defense the K frame was not originally designed to be a 357 so as a 357 it does have some limitations, the Ruger was designed from a blank page to be a 357 Magnum as such they did a great job of removing these limitations.
Grizz22 I Dissagree where you place the SP in your list. It is far superior in strength to the K frame and on par with the GP.
So, if I'm reading all this
Correctly, metallurgy speaking, investment casting as in
Rugers, the end product will have more weight and mass
Therefore adding to its strength.
Not quite the casting process requires it to be a little thicker to have equal strength metallurgically speaking, Rugers gains strength from not having a side plate.

CraigC
June 17, 2013, 05:18 PM
In Smith's defense the K frame was not originally designed to be a 357...
I know, just as the N-frame was not designed for the .44Mag. S&W has done 'okay' adapting existing designs to new chamberings, basically only due to improvements in metallurgy and heat treatment. Which is fine and I GREATLY prefer S&W's to Ruger DA's but the strength/durability factor is one that cannot be ignored.

CPLofMARINES
June 17, 2013, 05:20 PM
Griz22, K frame/SP tie, SP as in Speed-Six ???

YJake
June 17, 2013, 05:22 PM
Edit

-Jake

CraigC
June 17, 2013, 05:27 PM
Griz22, K frame/SP tie, SP as in Speed-Six ???
The Security Six, Speed Six and Service Six are all built on the same frame and thus, equal in strength and durability.

CPLofMARINES
June 17, 2013, 05:29 PM
Thank you, totally had a brain fart.

CPLofMARINES
June 17, 2013, 05:33 PM
CraigC, now, not to get off track, but I thought the N-frame
Was designed for the .44 mag, or was the .44spl first on
That platform ?????

CraigC
June 17, 2013, 05:53 PM
The first N-frame was the 1st Model New Century Hand Ejector of 1908, also known as the "Triple Lock". The .44Spl debuted in this model and was the principle chambering but they were also offered in .44Russian, .45S&W, .450Eley, .455Webley, .45Colt, 38-40, .44-40 and a few in .22LR. The .44Mag didn't come to be until 1956.

CPLofMARINES
June 17, 2013, 06:00 PM
Ok, so frame size was not increased for the .44 Mag,
S&W worked with what they had.

CraigC
June 17, 2013, 06:03 PM
Yep! Not to derail the thread but if they had given Keith what he asked for, which was his 250gr at 1200fps, they probably wouldn't have ever had the durability issues with them. Which is only a little higher pressure-wise than the .45ACP (26,000psi vs 21,000psi). Shooting for the moon with 1450fps is what shook a lot of these guns loose.

CPLofMARINES
June 17, 2013, 06:16 PM
Thank you, not to derail here, but I don't want to start
Another thread. Since we are talking about metallurgy,
Strength, durability, weight and mass. About a year and
A half ago I bought a new S&W 686+ 3-5-7 Magnum
Series, Talo, now it's listed weight is 37.4 oz. 5" barrel.
That seems on the light side, don't get me wrong, I love
It, but you would think something like that would weigh
A bit more. What gives????

CPLofMARINES
June 17, 2013, 06:21 PM
Is it today's technology in processing metals/steel that
Handguns of years back didn't have?? Like Bill Ruger
Back in the day was doing?

Cosmoline
June 17, 2013, 07:55 PM
Isn't that one with an alloy frame?

CPLofMARINES
June 17, 2013, 08:18 PM
Not sure, everywhere I read it says stainless steel

4v50 Gary
June 17, 2013, 08:20 PM
Back in the days when cops carried revolvers (and some still do), the Colorado Dept. of Public Safety tried Colts, S&W and Ruger revolvers. They tied them behind a pickup truck and dragged them across the desert. The only revolver to function after that torture test is Ruger.

As for the original question, I would consider the Ruger Security Six to be equal (market wise) to the S&W K frame. The L frame with its seven shot feature has an edge with its extra shot.

Arizonagunrunner
June 17, 2013, 08:54 PM
I'm all about my Speed Six

ArchAngelCD
June 18, 2013, 01:02 AM
I'm so tired of hearing "Rugers are built like tanks" because they are not. They are extremely strong revolvers but not because of their size which is due to the way they are manufactured.

I'm also sick of hearing K frames are weak revolvers and can not be shot a lot with full magnum loads. That is also untrue. The K frame is not weak but it was prone to forcing cone damage caused by the screaming velocities of 125gr bullets in the .357 Magnum loads. That ammo was not available when the K frame magnum was developed. Somehow a weak forcing cone that can be damaged by 125gr ammo translated into the K frame being a weak revolver while it is not.

Disclaimer: I own and shoot both Ruger and S&W revolvers and like both.

GRIZ22
June 18, 2013, 01:31 AM
They redesigned it for ease of manufacture. Had nothing to do with the grip frame

Security and Service Sixes originally had a grip that resembled that of a single action action. I know, I used to own one. If there was another redesign for manufacturing ease I am not aware of it.

Not quite the casting process requires it to be a little thicker to have equal strength metallurgically speaking, Rugers gains strength from not having a side plate.


Conventional casting would require thicker metal. Nodular cast steel is as strong of even stronger than forging as the stress lines within the metal are more dispersed. Google nodular cast steel and read up on it. Ferrari uses nodular cast steel components in their engines. If there were something better I'm sure they'd use it.

Rugers gain additional strength from no sideplate so we agree on that.

Griz22, K frame/SP tie, SP as in Speed-Six ???

SP as in SP101. I think the SP is stronger than a K frame but that's only an opinion as I have nothing to back the statement up.

The Security Six, Speed Six and Service Six are all built on the same frame and thus, equal in strength and durability.

Actually the Security Six may be stronger as the top strap is thicker at the rear to accomodate the adjustable sights.

Is it today's technology in processing metals/steel that
Handguns of years back didn't have?? Like Bill Ruger
Back in the day was doing?

Metallurgy has improved a lot in the past 40 years since the Ruger Sixes were introduced. I've seen older J frames from the 70s and 80s blow out cylinders and top straps from using several hundred rounds of +P+ treasury loads which ran about 25,000 psi. That about 10,000 psi less than SAAMI spec for 357. You can get a J frame that will easily digest 357s today.

CraigC
June 18, 2013, 11:44 AM
Security and Service Sixes originally had a grip that resembled that of a single action action. I know, I used to own one. If there was another redesign for manufacturing ease I am not aware of it.
It resembled every other DA on the market. I don't know why you would think it was like a single action or why that would be the reason for the redesign. As far as ease of manufacturing, that is what Bill Ruger told R.L. Wilson for the book "Bill Ruger and His Guns".

What about this is different from any S&W DA?
http://smokeonthewater.typepad.com/smokeonthewater/images/Security_Six.jpg


Actually the Security Six may be stronger as the top strap is thicker at the rear to accomodate the adjustable sights.
That's arguable. No such distinction is made between Blackhawks and Vaqueros, even when converted to five-shot .45Colt, .475 and .500 Linebaugh.

mavracer
June 18, 2013, 12:08 PM
Conventional casting would require thicker metal. Nodular cast steel is as strong of even stronger than forging as the stress lines within the metal are more dispersed. Google nodular cast steel and read up on it. Ferrari uses nodular cast steel components in their engines. If there were something better I'm sure they'd use it.
A Ruger isn't nodular cast "iron" and there's really no such thing as nodular cast steel.
Many stock production cars use cast cranks but most race cars use forged steel or billet.

If Ruger's investment cast steel is as strong as forged why would Ruger use forged steel for the barrels and cylinders?

CraigC
June 18, 2013, 12:19 PM
For one thing, those parts are easier to cut from round barstock than they are to cast. A revolver frame is a bit different.

CPLofMARINES
June 18, 2013, 12:28 PM
So, regarding my post #24, is it that today's metals
Are way different, that reduces the weight on my
S&W 686+ 3-5-7 Magnum, Talo (5" barrel) ??

CraigC
June 18, 2013, 01:16 PM
That weight may be a little optimistic. My 6" K-38 with its light tapered barrel is 37oz. A full lug five inch L-frame should be a couple ounces heavier than that.

CPLofMARINES
June 18, 2013, 01:36 PM
That's what I'm saying, S&W lists it at 37.4 oz, now I
Haven't weighed it myself. Thanks for all the input!

NoirFan
June 18, 2013, 02:08 PM
I say this as a Smith and Wesson fan who owns only Smith revolvers: the K-Frame is more likely to have a better trigger when you get it, but the Security Six is better in every other way. The Ruger is just a more modern, more efficient design that's easier to maintain and won't break down nearly as soon.

I love K-frames because I started out on one and learned how to shoot with one, but they have given me problems over the years. If I could start over with any medium frame revolver I'd go with the Ruger.

Hangingrock
June 18, 2013, 03:15 PM
I was trying to find the correct nomenclature so I’ll describe this as best that I can. On early Security Six revolvers the back strap (?)shoulder(?) that would contact the web of the shooters hand between the thumb and index fingers was contoured differently than later production. Early production examples the back strap shoulder would slip under the web of the hand during recoil. Later production units the back strap shoulder was modified/revised to help preclude this problem.

As for Investment Casting process Remington made certain small parts with this process before Ruger utilized the process. Ruger went with the process out of necessity lack of capital and manufacturing capability. Ruger thru experience gained institutional knowledge with the process forming the subsidiary of Pine Tree Castings.

As for the merits of different processes it’s all economics/efficiency/functionality that decides the process to be employed to produce the end product.

mavracer
June 18, 2013, 03:28 PM
That's what I'm saying, S&W lists it at 37.4 oz, now I
I find that weight suspect since that's somehow 2 oz lighter than a standard 4" with a fluted cylinder.
For one thing, those parts are easier to cut from round barstock than they are to cast.
Not so sure about that. The great part about the investment casting is limiting machining. If they cast the cylinder all they'd have to do is cut the chambers.

Elkins45
June 18, 2013, 03:31 PM
I would rather feed a Six a steady diet of magnum ammo, but if I were carrying one for serious social purposes I would prefer the K strictly because of ergonomics and the quality of the DA trigger. My Security Six feels like a brick in my hand compared to my Model 19.

CraigC
June 18, 2013, 03:34 PM
Not so sure about that. The great part about the investment casting is limiting machining. If they cast the cylinder all they'd have to do is cut the chambers.
Yes but they have to cast the part, rather than just buying barstock. Ruger has always been a genius of a businessman first. I'm sure that if it were cheaper and easier, they would be doing it. There is actually MORE machine work that would be necessary for a cast cylinder. Cut the chambers, cut the ratchet, machine every surface, cut the flutes, radius the edges, etc., etc.. No way could a cast cylinder be used with 'just' cutting the chambers.

CPLofMARINES
June 18, 2013, 04:44 PM
mavracer, that's what I'm saying, but when I first fired
It, (full magnum) it seemed to have a bit more recoil
Than what I was expecting. Any Smith experts out there,
Might have an explanation. Did S&W shave weight in the
Frame or grip somehow. I assumed it would be a standard
686+ with a non-fluted cylinder and wood grips ?

CPLofMARINES
June 18, 2013, 04:46 PM
I know we have drifted a bit here, but I think some good
Talk regarding metallurgy processes have been presented
Here, Thank you !

wkuban
June 18, 2013, 05:14 PM
The Ruger's will equal the S&W revolvers in strength and accuracy. They won't equal the S&W in the feel, or the action, or the trigger pull. You can make them shoot great and even tune the actions but they still wont handle like a S&W.

CPLofMARINES
June 18, 2013, 05:42 PM
wkuban, I agree, I have heard that a trigger job on a Smith
Is way easier than on a Ruger, not that a Smith would
Need one. They (Smith's) are much smoother out of the
Box, I agree. Just wondering how the weight of my latest
Smith seems low for what you would think in a revolver
Of its size, not complaining, I consider it to be my, let me
Retract, one of my favorite revolvers!!

mavracer
June 18, 2013, 06:10 PM
Yes but they have to cast the part, rather than just buying barstock.
Come on Craig are you thinking about what you are saying.
If it was cheaper and/or easier to machine parts from bar stock we wouldn't have any MIM or cast parts.
They make cylinders and barrels from forged steel for strength.

mavracer
June 18, 2013, 07:19 PM
I'd be interested to put it on a scale. Just checked Smith's website and they list the 3" at 36.8 oz but the 7" version is listed at 51.2oz they're all the same gun with the same grip. So 2" is worth 1/2 oz from 3 to 5" and 13.8 oz from a 5 to a 7"???

CPLofMARINES
June 18, 2013, 07:49 PM
mavracer, I know, I was just there my self, revolvers, page
Seven, top, far right, that's the one in question. 37.4 oz
I mean my GP100 is only an inch more and weighs way
More! Just wondering what's up. S&W site snafu or what?

hAkron
June 18, 2013, 10:21 PM
Dan Wesson made their large frame revolvers similar to the Ruger design. No side plates. I guess this causes less flex..or maybe less asymmetrical flex under heavy loads?

zxcvbob
June 18, 2013, 10:26 PM
Security-Six; equal to a K or L Frame?

It fits in a K-frame holster.

PabloJ
June 18, 2013, 10:28 PM
OK. Best of both worlds K frame looks with L frame strength. The 3" stainless was outstanding revolver but Ruger dropped it to get more shelf space with GP and SP revolvers.

Haywood
June 18, 2013, 11:20 PM
The Smiths are good guns but, I'd rather have the Ruger. I think they are heavy duty.

CraigC
June 18, 2013, 11:41 PM
If it was cheaper and/or easier to machine parts from bar stock we wouldn't have any MIM or cast parts.
We're not talking about other parts. We're talking about making round barrels and round cylinders out of round barstock. Ruger hammer forges their barrels anyway. Even if casting was compatible with cylinders, it won't save any machine work. Every surface still has to be machined. Think about what YOU are saying.

mavracer
June 19, 2013, 09:51 AM
We're talking about making round barrels and round cylinders out of round barstock.
Ruger barrels on DA ain't round they all have shrouded ejector rods and ribs.
Every surface still has to be machined. Think about what YOU are saying.
Why would they have to machine the outside of the cylinder they don't machine the outside of their frames?
With investment casting Ruger is able to get right close to a finished product cutting down on the amount of material they need to remove. Do you know what cutting more material does to machine time? Do you understand that machine time is a major cost factor?
Of course I've only talked to Robert Stutler about this, I'm pretty sure he knows a bit more than us about manufacturing Rugers.

CraigC
June 19, 2013, 10:21 AM
Why would they have to machine the outside of the cylinder they don't machine the outside of their frames?
Uh, yes they do. Sorry but you don't go from an "as cast" finish to a finished gun without machining. Have you ever seen a Ruger casting? It's fairly close but not 'that' close. I don't care if you've talked to Bill Ruger himself you have a misunderstanding of their manufacturing process.

mavracer
June 19, 2013, 04:47 PM
Uh, yes they do. Sorry but you don't go from an "as cast" finish to a finished gun without machining. Have you ever seen a Ruger casting? It's fairly close but not 'that' close. I don't care if you've talked to Bill Ruger himself you have a misunderstanding of their manufacturing process.
I think Col. Stutler has a fine understanding of Ruger's manufacturing processes since he oversaw the Prescott AZ production plant and since Bill Ruger has been dead for over 10 years, Col Stutler is a lot easier to talk to especially since his gun store is only an hour from my house.

Bottom line weather you want to believe it or not a cast cylinder would be cheaper and easier to make and they don't cast them because of strength issues.

CraigC
June 20, 2013, 12:23 AM
I'm not questioning his knowledge, I'm questioning yours. I'm sorry but if you think Ruger's guns are not machined after casting you are simply dead wrong. All you have to do is inspect one of their guns and you can tell the difference between the as-cast surfaces and machined surfaces. If you think a cylinder could be cast and the only machine work required would be the chambers, you're wrong again. Strength issues aside, I seriously doubt that Ruger could build cylinders from castings cheaper than buying barstock.

Again, they hammer forge their barrels so that is all moot.

mavracer
June 20, 2013, 09:18 AM
All you have to do is inspect one of their guns and you can tell the difference between the as-cast surfaces and machined surfaces.
Yes and you can also tell the difference between the outside where the gun is finished and the inside where it is only milled.
I seriously doubt that Ruger could build cylinders from castings cheaper than buying barstock.
Of course if you were right then it'd be cheaper to cut hammers and triggers out of flat barstock.:rolleyes:

CraigC
June 20, 2013, 01:11 PM
You're talking very simplistically about two very different parts but whatever dude.

CPLofMARINES
June 20, 2013, 06:07 PM
:uhoh:

skidder
June 20, 2013, 07:25 PM
Was wondering if the Security-Six would be similar to
A S&W K or L frame. I own a GP100 as well and the
GP100 seems like a more robust revolver. Love them
Equally as well. Thanks for any input!


SEMPER FI

Security Six = k-frame

I've owned both: Model 66 S&W and I currently own 4 Security Six revolvers.

What many don't realize is the 4" 66 is listed as 36 ounces and my 4" Security Six tips the scales at 34 ounces, but yet the Six is stronger than the 66. The Smith edges out the Six for the better trigger, but the Six gets the title for the stronger of the two.

IMO the k-frame size 357 is the "Cat's pajamas"!! Both in Ruger and Smith and Wesson. They once ruled the world and for good reason. Their weight along with size and the powerful 357 magnum cartridge made them one of the primary carry weapons for LEOs across the country.

CPLofMARINES
June 20, 2013, 10:48 PM
skidder, so, what you have said, it's possible for the
Revolver in question in my post #24 to weigh what it's
Listed at ?

skidder
June 20, 2013, 11:20 PM
skidder, so, what you have said, it's possible for the
Revolver in question in my post #24 to weigh what it's
Listed at ?

That does seem light for an L-frame with a 5" barrel. Do you have a digital scale available?

RugRev
June 21, 2013, 12:55 PM
Using S&W specs I guess it could weigh 37 oz. I have a 4" 686 + with Mtn. Gun bbl and factory listed weight is 35.5 oz. if I recall. I think as a comparison a 4" underlug 686+ specs at 38.5 oz or so and the 6 shot a bit over 41 oz so barrel configuration and grip weight can factor in. The 686 Mtn. Gun actually weighed slightly less than a 66 4"I had.

CPLofMARINES
June 21, 2013, 05:45 PM
No digital scale. I mean it's not a game changer, just
A gee wiz thing. I'm sure design/wood grips as a lot to
Due with the felt recoil. I'm sure it's not fair to compare
To my 6" GP100. I know one thing the Smith's are
Smoother from the get go. I have been eyeing them more
The past couple years, which has resulted in a couple
Purchases. Not a bad thing, right ? Well, my Wife doesn't
Exactly see it that way. LOL Thank you everyone for
Your input.

SEMPER FI

b.thomas
June 22, 2013, 01:21 AM
I have a 617 .22 rimfire(K frame) and a Security Six stainless (6") barrel.
The difference is: the S6 is a k frame on steroids.
:D

Jaymo
June 22, 2013, 01:56 AM
I wish I'd never sold my Speed Six. The previous owner had a trigger job done on it. It was very light, very smooth, and it NEVER misfired. (the hard-to-believe part)

Where are all these factory Smiths with world beater triggers? I've never shot or handled a non-Performance Center Smith revolver that had a factory trigger to write home about. Most were, "meh", many were downright horrible. (not talking about prewar Smiths, different animal)

skidder
June 22, 2013, 03:00 AM
I don't have much money, so it took close to 4 years to gather the 4 pictured below. Gun shows, pawn shops, and classifieds (the hunt to me is part of the fun :)). They are all great, but my favorite is the 4" Security Six. Just the perfect 4" 357 IMO. 34 ounces to tame the recoil, but not too bulky. The only other one that came close was my 4" 66 that I so foolishly sold in my mid 20's :banghead:. I was actually out looking for another 66 when I stumbled on the Six Series.

Security, Service, and Speed

http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc456/exlogger/Speed%20Six/Sixes_zpse77b57d8.jpg


The same 4" with rubber grips.

http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc456/exlogger/Security%20Six/FourSix_zps3a9db65a.jpg

hAkron
June 22, 2013, 06:18 PM
I don't have much money, so it took close to 4 years to gather the 4 pictured below. Gun shows, pawn shops, and classifieds (the hunt to me is part of the fun :)). They are all great, but my favorite is the 4" Security Six. Just the perfect 4" 357 IMO. 34 ounces to tame the recoil, but not too bulky. The only other one that came close was my 4" 66 that I so foolishly sold in my mid 20's :banghead:. I was actually out looking for another 66 when I stumbled on the Six Series.

Security, Service, and Speed

http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc456/exlogger/Speed%20Six/Sixes_zpse77b57d8.jpg


The same 4" with rubber grips.

http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc456/exlogger/Security%20Six/FourSix_zps3a9db65a.jpg

You have a great collection there!!

Confederate
June 23, 2013, 06:55 PM
Griz22 is mostly correct in his assessment of the Security-Six and S&W 66. Although I love the latter, the Ruger, in my opinion, is the best production .357 ever produced (and that includes its siblings, the Speed-Sixes, Service-Sixes, etc.). Legendary gun writer Skeeter Skelton said he knew of three Ruger Security-Sixes, each of which had in excess of 30,000 hot magnum rounds through them. One, he reported, was slightly out of time; however, the others were still shooting with no parts replacements needed.

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh198/jriler/rugerga-32-1.jpg (http://s256.photobucket.com/user/jriler/media/rugerga-32-1.jpg.html)


Much has been made of Ruger's investment casting, but after considerable testing, no advantage whatsoever has been noted of forged steel over investment casting. The frame torquing and parts replacements in the Model 19 K-frames were completely avoided by Ruger's brilliant solid frame design and oversized parts. It kept the gun small and light, easy to carry on the trail or camping. This is simply not true of today's S&W 686 and, worse, the GP-100 (which is a kludge, in my view). I've owned a number of 686s and they're wonderful .357s, but they seem to be more for the range than field work. A 6-inch Security-Six is a great hunting revolver; so is the Smith 66. I don't think the heavy guns are a great advantage. Ruger's .357 didn't need upgrading, but the K-frames did.

I handled a 4-inch GP-100 at a gun store recently and it was like handling a brick! I imagined carrying it camping or hiking and couldn't see it. I do think the 686 is a better gun; better balanced, but I just don't like the barrel underlugs. Heavy barrels are great for conditioned shooting on a range, but when picking up a moving target in self defense, el sucko!

These guns also have pretty much destroyed the small 6-shot .357 gun industry. The SP-101 is a nice pocket pistol, but defending myself against black bear, for example, it lacks power and precision.


http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh198/jriler/RUGERSecurity-Six4-inch_1.jpg (http://s256.photobucket.com/user/jriler/media/RUGERSecurity-Six4-inch_1.jpg.html)

The Security-Six was near perfection. Power coupled with incredible
strength and size, made it the ideal trail gun.


http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh198/jriler/Ruger_SS_Assembly_1a.jpg (http://s256.photobucket.com/user/jriler/media/Ruger_SS_Assembly_1a.jpg.html)

The design of the earlier Ruger is well balanced and of modular design.


http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh198/jriler/Speed-Six_6.jpg (http://s256.photobucket.com/user/jriler/media/Speed-Six_6.jpg.html)

The Speed-Six, one of the Security-Sixes' siblings, also is an outstanding
trail gun and camping gun. It's lean, fits squarely in the hand and has a 3-inch
barrel. This one's in my bugout bag.


http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh198/jriler/RugerCylinder_2.jpg (http://s256.photobucket.com/user/jriler/media/RugerCylinder_2.jpg.html)

Ruger placed the notch over the thick part of the cylinder, not over the
chamber as the S&W revolvers do.

.

triplebike
June 23, 2013, 07:37 PM
Thank you, not to derail here, but I don't want to start
Another thread. Since we are talking about metallurgy,
Strength, durability, weight and mass. About a year and
A half ago I bought a new S&W 686+ 3-5-7 Magnum
Series, Talo, now it's listed weight is 37.4 oz. 5" barrel.
That seems on the light side, don't get me wrong, I love
It, but you would think something like that would weigh
A bit more. What gives????
I believe the 686 plus (7-shot) has a "alloy" frame , whereas the non plus (6-shot) has a stainless frame.

hAkron
June 23, 2013, 08:37 PM
There is a scandium L frame (386) but all of the 686 pluses are stainless steel.

joneb
June 23, 2013, 11:49 PM
so the K frame was originally developed for 38 spl and later adapted for 357 mag. ?
And the Ruger Six series was developed around the 357 mag. cartridge ?

CPLofMARINES
June 24, 2013, 12:33 AM
^^ jibjab, I think that is true. Now, it's hard for me to
Believe the 686+ has an alloy frame. ??? Density of the
Material maybe ?? I don't know, just doesn't feel as solid.
Compared to a GP100.

skidder
June 24, 2013, 12:48 AM
Confederate-- Thanks for the detailed post about the Six Series.

One question? How did you get that round grip on your shorty Security Six?:confused:


http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh198/jriler/rugerga-32-1.jpg

19-3Ben
June 24, 2013, 06:58 AM
One question? How did you get that round grip on your shorty Security Six?
I'm going to guess with a grinder. All you have to do is take the squared corners off the bottom of the gripframe. My Security Six is going to the gunsmith for similar treatment soon.

zxcvbob
June 24, 2013, 09:06 AM
My Security Six has a round-butt rubber grip even though it has a square butt frame. (it was set up that way when I bought it used)

19-3Ben
June 24, 2013, 09:58 PM
My Security Six has a round-butt rubber grip even though it has a square butt frame. That sounds like a square-to-round conversion grip.

The grip on the pictured gun is a Pachmayr Compact which was only available in REAL round butt, and is the same as I have on my Speed Six. His Security Six has to have a grip frame profile just like a Speed Six.

Confederate
June 24, 2013, 11:13 PM
How did you get that round grip on your shorty Security Six?
Yep, I used a grinder. I took a pair of round Ruger grips and put them on the square butt. Then I used a black marker to outline the new shape. Then I turned on the grinder and simply rounded them. Didn't bother refinishing them, though it wouldn't be difficult -- merely unnecessary.

Warning: Doing it on 4-inch or smaller barrels is fine, but don't put them on 6-inchers. It just doesn't work as well. How do I know? I put the round grips on a 6-incher before I ground the grips down. They didn't fit, of course, but I did get a feel for it, and I didn't like it. If you have smallish hands, you may disagree.

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh198/jriler/Bench_1.jpg (http://s256.photobucket.com/user/jriler/media/Bench_1.jpg.html)

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh198/jriler/Bench_2.jpg (http://s256.photobucket.com/user/jriler/media/Bench_2.jpg.html)

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh198/jriler/Bench_3.jpg (http://s256.photobucket.com/user/jriler/media/Bench_3.jpg.html)

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh198/jriler/RugerSecurity-SixTrio_3.jpg (http://s256.photobucket.com/user/jriler/media/RugerSecurity-SixTrio_3.jpg.html)

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh198/jriler/RugerSecurity-Six4_inch_2.jpg (http://s256.photobucket.com/user/jriler/media/RugerSecurity-Six4_inch_2.jpg.html)

The S&W 686 was designed to be, not a poor man's replacement, but anyone's replacement for the vaunted Colt Python. When the first ones came out, magazine writers and hard core shooters were quick to compare the 686 with the Python. And the verdict was, yes, the 686-0 was dead on as accurate as the Python. Whether that's true now, I don't know. It depends on whether S&W is continuing to watch it's tolerances. But regardless of how accurate they are, they're substantially larger and heavier than the medium frame Security-Six.

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh198/jriler/SW_Ruger_1.jpg (http://s256.photobucket.com/user/jriler/media/SW_Ruger_1.jpg.html)

Ruger's SP-101 is a nice pocket pistol for street carry, but I prefer the Speed-Six for use against bears and cougars. The power and versatility of the .357 make it the ideal outdoor gun. But only Taurus seems to offer reasonable outdoor models. But its medium frame guns have the same vulnerability as the medium S&Ws. That means not putting a steady diet of magnum ammo through them.

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh198/jriler/Rugers_357.jpg (http://s256.photobucket.com/user/jriler/media/Rugers_357.jpg.html)

.

joneb
June 25, 2013, 12:04 AM
Does Pachmayre still make grips for the Speed Six ?

skidder
June 25, 2013, 01:25 AM
confederate-- That's a pretty sweet idea. The round butt will fit both grip sizes.

I already have the Speed Six grip panels, and I've always wanted smaller grips on my Service Six.

Thanks for the detailed pics!

Confederate
June 25, 2013, 09:00 PM
You can still get Pachmayr grips on eBay and by doing a search for compact grips for Ruger Speed-Six. Pachmayr made two types, one that encloses the entire grip and one that fits into the backstrap. I like the former. Some may not fit together in the back very well. That's probably due to its age. I was able to find grips that fit well all around.

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh198/jriler/RugerSecurity-Six4_inch_RB_2.jpg (http://s256.photobucket.com/user/jriler/media/RugerSecurity-Six4_inch_RB_2.jpg.html)

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh198/jriler/PachmayrGaps.jpg (http://s256.photobucket.com/user/jriler/media/PachmayrGaps.jpg.html)

.

skidder
June 26, 2013, 02:01 AM
Thanks again Confederate.

I found these two weeks ago on ebay for my Speed Six-- $26.
They have the Ruger emblem, but they didn't come with a box so I'm not sure who makes them?
If I perform the surgery on my Service Six I'll have to find another set.


http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc456/exlogger/Speed%20Six/SpeedGrip2_zps880b57f8.jpg

Lucky Derby
June 26, 2013, 05:06 AM
It resembled every other DA on the market. I don't know why you would think it was like a single action or why that would be the reason for the redesign. As far as ease of manufacturing, that is what Bill Ruger told R.L. Wilson for the book "Bill Ruger and His Guns".

What about this is different from any S&W DA?
http://smokeonthewater.typepad.com/smokeonthewater/images/Security_Six.jpg



That's arguable. No such distinction is made between Blackhawks and Vaqueros, even when converted to five-shot .45Colt, .475 and .500 Linebaugh.
I think I know where the confusion is comming from.
During the run of the -Six series revolvers there was a change in the grip shape due to it being to much like a SA grip. Your pic shows a later Security-Six
When Ruger dropped the -Six series guns and introduced the GP100, it was due to the GP100 being less expensive to produce.

WBCCI3371
June 26, 2013, 09:05 AM
Bought a 4" blued Security Six back in the early 70s (?) and shot it a lot with both 38 SP and 357. The sights were very nice. I took a big buck with it at 125' in Maine.

I customized some big bulky wood grips with finger grooves so I could hold it easily soon after I bought it.

I loved the look of the GP100 4" and tried my best to be equally accurate with lots of practice but recently sold it because I just could not get used to the lack of accuracy, no matter how much I shot it. Maybe I should have changed grips?

My only regret is that I sold it too cheap. Sold it a week before Sandy Hook for $400.

Love all the technical talk on the comparisons. I don't have a technical background and cannot disprove anything in this thread, I know my experiences with both Rugers I owned, the Security Six is the most easiest to shoot and most accurate for me.

Thanks,
Rich

texagun
June 26, 2013, 09:22 AM
Great thread with lots of good porn on an excellent gun and one of my favorites. I bought the 4" in 1979 and the 6" in 1981. I polished up the trigger components on both of them and the single action triggers are as good as any of my S&W's.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y46/w5lx/IMG_1268_zps6d8be2de.jpg

skidder
June 27, 2013, 02:29 AM
Great thread with lots of good porn on an excellent gun and one of my favorites. I bought the 4" in 1979 and the 6" in 1981. I polished up the trigger components on both of them and the single action triggers are as good as any of my S&W's.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y46/w5lx/IMG_1268_zps6d8be2de.jpg


Wow! Those are some fine specimens.

If you enjoyed reading about "Security-Six; equal to a K or L Frame?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!