Speed Six/Service Six

A steady diet of full magnums is not likely to kill them, these are pretty tough guns (and some of my favorite revolvers) in my experience.

The Service six and Security Six are both square butt and the Speed Six is round butt kind of. The grips are different at any rate. The speed six may only come in the 2 3/4" barrel length. I know the Security and Service Sixes come in it.

You'll be fine with all sane .357Mag loads.

Great pistols. I score one in a pawn shop every now and then for a song. Seems everyone wants a Glock these days....

IIRC, the Speed Six has adjustable sights and the Service Six has fixed sights. They both come in various barrel lengths.

I've had both at one time or another. Good guns.

The Ruger is probably "stronger" than a Model 19, but I doubt you'd ever notice it.

Mark at Summit Gun Broker has just listed some .38 Service Sixes. He has Smith 64s also.

http://www.summitgunbroker.com/Ruger_Service_6.html

Service Six (square butt, fixed sights) Was available in 2.75, 4 barrels

Speed Six (round butt) Was available in 2, 2.75, 4 inch barrels

Security Six (square butt, adjustable sights) Was available in 2.75, 4 and 6 inch barrels

The Speed has fixed sights as well.

There are short barrel and longer barrel versions of each of the three, but typically the Speeds are compact, while the Service and Security are full size.

Security Six, first of the sixes introduced in 1968:
- square butt full grip frame, adjustable sights, came mainly in .357 and in 2.75", 4" and 6" barrel lengths.

Police Service Six:
- basically a fixed sight Security Six, again offered mainly in .357 and in 2", 2.75", 3" and 4" barrels.

Speed Six:
- basically a round butt frame version of the Service Six and offered in the same barrel lengths.

There were some odd versions of these, like some in .38spl, some .38S&W (380 British) and some in 9mm (even a few with a patented cylinder ring making moon clips unnecessary for ejection). All told, something like 1.4-1.5+ million produced.

GET ONE! They are wonderful guns, I have a pair of Police Service Sixes (1982 4" and 1988 3"):



And yes, they are generally considered to be sturdier then the k-frame S&W's when it comes to extensive use of .357 loads. Only in the final years of production did Ruger have to cut the 6-oclock position of their forcing cones (like the S&W m19) to accomodate a revised gas ring on the cylinder yoke (my 1988 3" has that, but the 1982 does not - not sure just what year they changed the design in that regard). However, to be honest, the differences between my 3" Service Six and my 3" S&W 65-3 are pretty subtle. In either weapon, I would avoid the use of light weight .357s - bullets less then 125gr. The problem with the k-frame smiths is much greater when a lot of light weight, hot .357 loads are shot then if you stick to 158gr or thereabouts (I've certainly seen some M19's and M66's that have stood up to a lot of .357 shooting and still doing fine, but their owners strictly avoid light weight or overly hot loads).

D'oh! corrected, you are right. Forgot to mention that while I said the difference in a 3" Service Six and a 3" 65-3 are subtle, I should add that the Ruger is some 3-3.5 oz heavier, so there is a difference (if I remember from my kitchen scales correctly, 65-3 = ~34oz, and the 3" Ruger = ~37oz).

There is also a "High Back" and a "Low Back" model Security-Six.

Right - serial numbers 150-xxxxx and earlier had a different shaped backstrap then the serial number 151-xxxxx and subsequent produciton. Finding grips for the first group of guns, (150-xxxxx and earlier, so 1974 and older) is more difficult then finding grips for the 151-xxxxx and subsequent guns.

IIRC the early shape was criticized in the press for being hard to hold in recoil and was altered to a more conventional shape as a result. It may have been Skeeter who took them to task on the original shape. I've seen the article somewhere.

It's interesting to remember that back in the 70's and 80's, Ruger was apparently seen as an upstart against the better respected Colt and S&W revolvers. I believe they retailed a notch cheaper. Over the years as the Colts have started to break apart or become expensive collectors items and the K frames have started to loosen, the Rugers are looking better and better.

Regarding "strength" of the Ruger vs the Smith...The Ruger Sixes were the first guns that Ruger used the investment cast method for frames and cylinders. Smiths have always been forgings. Assuming that the hardening processes used were proper for the material, it should be no difference. Given that, the K-frame Smiths have a side place that can be loosened by the repeated use of heavy .357 loads. (Torque induced by recoil.) The Rugers have the "solid" frame that is less susceptible to torque.

Inspect the forcing cone with a good set of magnifying glasses. If you see no adverse wear and no "cutting" of the initial edge of the forcing cone (the flat that is about .003 inch from the front of the cylinder) then you are probably OK.

The "cracking" thing was found from lots of 125 grain .357 magnum loads being fired through the K-frame magnum revolvers.

I have not heard of any "cracking" in revolvers that shot 158 grain .357 loads. Still, I own several K-frame magnum revolvers (M19s, M66s), have shot .357 loads through them occasionally, but also adhere to the old maxim ".38s for practice, .357s for business."

I tend to treat my guns better than everybody else treats me!!

The Ruger is probably "stronger" than a Model 19, but I doubt you'd ever notice it.

Click to expand...

Well, this isn't quite true unless you rarely shoot your gun. The Rugers are substantially stronger. They have solid frames, oversize pawls, thicker, stronger cylinders and massive topstraps. Weight wise, they're roughly the same, plus they can be stripped and reassembled in the field with only the rim of a shell case to remove the grips. They'll go tens of thousands of rounds...Smiths won't.

It's not that Smiths are bad guns; it's just that Rugers are stronger. But sometimes strength isn't eveything. I still prefer the Smith 29/629 to the Ruger horse pistols that are larger and heavier.

I would have loved to see Ruger put out a .44 mag version of its Security-Six in a smaller, lighter frame.

Didn't somebody used to make custom 5 shot .44 specials on Ruger "six" frames?

I believe you're correct but I don't know who was doing them. I saw one on GB recently, ornately engraved, going for a grand. I believe someone snatched it, and got a heck of a deal. It's on my "one day when I'm rich" list.

Well, this isn't quite true unless you rarely shoot your gun. The Rugers are substantially stronger. They have solid frames, oversize pawls, thicker, stronger cylinders and massive topstraps. Weight wise, they're roughly the same, plus they can be stripped and reassembled in the field with only the rim of a shell case to remove the grips. They'll go tens of thousands of rounds...Smiths won't.

Click to expand...

I agree. Bill Ruger saw the problems Smith and Wesson were having with the model 19. Plus, what better idea to use his investment casing to bring out a never seen double action revolver. The Security/Service/Speed Sixes were brought out to compete against the Smith and Wesson 19/66. They did well. And if you do some research on them, some LE agencies perferred them better than the model 19 because of the durability. It is sad they quit making them in the mid eighties but sources said that Bill Ruger did not make much money on the Sercurity Six. Too bad. To me they handle better than the GP100.

Thanks,
roaddog28