Are older Rugers better quality?

I bought my first Ruger (Single Six) in 1962, then a .357 Blackhawk in 1970. Two Vaqueros in 1999, and a used Security Six in 2005. I have Ruger .22 autos, first, second, and third generations. I don't see much difference in quality, fit, or finish.

The new GP100 triggers and SP101 triggers I've tried are A LOT better than the Security Six triggers out of the box. (I have a 1976-era Service Six 4")

The reports I've seen say the Wolff spring kits don't help.

The trigger on my SP101 is almost as nice as my old Model 19 (target hammer and trigger) without the light strikes.

The "Six"es are easier to pack than the GP100 though. The SP101 even more so.

As for quality I'd say they are equal.

The new GP100 triggers and SP101 triggers I've tried are A LOT better than the Security Six triggers out of the box.

Click to expand...

Completely disagree, I have a both a security six and a GP100. And the SS out classes the GP100 all day long. Only difference being that the SS obviously has more rounds through it. Not to mention the SS is much more aesthetically pleasing. So to answer the OP, IMO YES.

There are several ongoing threads on the main page of the revolvers section about .357s and the Rugers. Check them out.

I think the GP100 and SP101 are better designed revolvers than what was previously available for those calibers. My impression is that the quality has been pretty consistant.

GP 100... is excellent revolver

The RUGER GP 100 6 "is really resistant to all" loaded magnum and like all RUGER, can last for your entire life. I have a stainless model and it is fabulous.

Completely disagree, I have a both a security six and a GP100. And the SS out classes the GP100 all day long. Only difference being that the SS obviously has more rounds through it. Not to mention the SS is much more aesthetically pleasing. So to answer the OP, IMO YES.

Click to expand...

Well, then my SS must suck.

FWIW it has not many rounds through it, but the OOTB GP100 my friend bought is much better.

My SP101 is delightful.

And yes agree 100% the aesthetics of the SS are much nicer than the GP100.

I think they've gotten better - at least I prefer the GP and SP to the Security Six I had way back when. Mine was from 1978 and as rough as a hobnail boot.

They even look better - especially the New Vaquero now that they've jettisoned that horrible fake case color.

I posted this in another 357 thread but since I love it so much I'm gonna post it again. I'll not bother with the gp100 since you guys seem to all already have one

I have been buying Rugers sporadically since my first one in 1973. The two I bought last year were finished better than anything else I have ever gotten from them.
I have yet to see any stock revolver that a Wolff spring kit wouldn't make some improvement in it, and personally I think the Rugers and Tauruses benefit the most because Ruger tends to "overspring" everything a bit, and Taurus uses a very simple mechanism on their DA revolvers.

Older is always better, my PSS is from Oct 1980.

I bought my 6" Stainless Security Six-used-in 1976, an after market trigger spring-Bullseye or Trapper, I forget-improved the trigger pull dramatically. I have always found Ruger quality control very consistent though I haven't bought one in years.

Guess the quality kind of averages out in a lot of them. My New Vaquero has a better trigger and action that my Blackhawk, but the Blackhawk is heavier made and will shoot higher pressure loads than the New Vaquero.

The SA's are really the same after a competent trigger job. Not so with the DA's. I think Ruger really stepped on their tallywacker when they stopped making the Security Six, best DA they ever made.

I have a Service Six that I have worked over and I like the trigger characteristics a whole lot better than the triggers of my GP100, SP101, or SRH.

It's a real nice shooter that will always be appreciated by a shooter.

The Security Six trigger benefits when you use them a lot. They will break in. The same goes for the GP100 or SP101. I have tried all of the Rugers and the trigger action differs from gun to gun. One might be good and the next one might be a heavy or gritty. But they are easily to fix and of course all Rugers are very sturdy.
I believe all the Rugers DA revolvers are the best buy today.

roaddog28

In the handgun world right now, especially with revolvers, this general rule applies to every gun I can think of. Given similar mechanical condition, OLDER IS BETTER.

With regard to Single Action Rugers, where the bulk of my experience lies, the best Vaquero is the first generation.
So, yes Virginia, older is better in most cases.

The GP100 was designed in responce to the short comings of the SS.

The GP100 was designed in responce to the short comings of the SS.

Click to expand...

Actually no.

The GP100 was introduced largely to compete with the S&W L frames, which were being touted as being able to withstand a steady diet of .357 magnum ammunition, and had gathered a large market share of both police and civilian sales due to the perception of their strength.

The truth was, the Security Six revolver series was quite able to hold up to more full .357 magnum than not only the K frame Smiths, but imho, (and my experience), they held up better than the first generation L frames as far as not needing tightening or parts repair after many thousands of factory .357 rounds.

jmfwsu, Ruger quit making the Security Six series around the time you say the one you're looking at was made. If it's in good shape, and hasn't been abused, (a lot), it will end up being one of the finest revolvers you have ever owned. I own several of them, along with dozens of S&W's. If I want to win a PPC match, I'll use one of my Smith's. If was packing a gun in the backwoods, I'd grab one of the Rugers.

Elmer said:

Actually no.

The GP100 was introduced largely to compete with the S&W L frames, which were being touted as being able to withstand a steady diet of .357 magnum ammunition, and had gathered a large market share of both police and civilian sales due to the perception of their strength.

The truth was, the Security Six revolver series was quite able to hold up to more full .357 magnum than not only the K frame Smiths, but imho, (and my experience), they held up better than the first generation L frames as far as not needing tightening or parts repair after many thousands of factory .357 rounds.

jmfwsu, Ruger quit making the Security Six series around the time you say the one you're looking at was made. If it's in good shape, and hasn't been abused, (a lot), it will end up being one of the finest revolvers you have ever owned. I own several of them, along with dozens of S&W's. If I want to win a PPC match, I'll use one of my Smith's. If was packing a gun in the backwoods, I'd grab one of the Rugers.

Click to expand...

I agree, the L frame was created by Smith to compete against the Security/Service/Speed six line. The Security six was starting to win the battle of the LE revolvers because of the short comings of the Smith mod 19/66. The 19/66 just could not hold up to the full house 357s. Security Six was much stronger and could stand a steady diet of 357s as long is you did get wild with reloading. The GP100 Ruger was not even a factor until 1985. The GP100 replaced the Security Six because Bill Ruger claims "he never made any money making the Security Six". The GP100 was designed with the latest in investment casting processing. Plus the GP100 was made to compete with the L frame.
roaddog28

I've owned many Gp's, Sp's, and various sixes throughout the years and my latest 3" Gp-100 is absolutely the best of them all. Excellent trigger out of the box, and crazy accurate (as is every other Gp-100 I've ever owned). I did have to replace the new Hogues with the older compact Gp grip. I can't stand those large grips on a concealment gun. And yes I do carry it concealed on a consistent basis.

Oh, I have dealt with a few older gunsmiths throughout the years, 1 has since passed, but still use the other pretty regularly, who both told me that the six series guns were much stronger than the K frames, were outstanding guns in every way, but they both said they saw problems develop in the sixes after shooting extensively with .357 that they haven't seen in either the L's or Gp's with like number of rounds. They both told me that there is indeed strength advantages of both over the sixes. They are/were both in their 70's and had mucho revolver experience personally and through customers.

The GP has more meat around the threads under the barrel which makes it slightly stronger, but I still prefer the Six.