tech
Member
I have seen a lot of threads about both of these. Here is my question, how much stronger is the GP? Can I safely shoot hot loads out of my Six or should I get a GP for that?
Mike
Mike
GP 100 VS Security Six
- Thread starter tech
- Start date
- Status
braindead0
Member
I wouldn't shoot 'hot' loads in anything but a GP-100 or a Redhawk.. ;-)
mohican
Member
By hot, do you mean at the maximum in the loading books? Or do you mean loads listed above the maximum listed? Or perhaps something like the CorBon loads?
The Security Six is a well built revolver, but is probably not as stout as it's successor, the GP100.
That being said, I would not shoot loads that exceed what the handloading manuals state. You gain very little power in relation to the abuse the gun (and perhaps yourself) sustains. The guns were designed to operate in a specific power range.
If you need more power, ie big game hunting, get a larger caliber.
The Security six is a more compact gun, and is lighter than the GP100. You will experience more recoil than with the GP100.
A gun that I know will take a lot of shooting with max (but not above max) .357 loads - the Ruger Blackhawk.
The Security Six is a well built revolver, but is probably not as stout as it's successor, the GP100.
That being said, I would not shoot loads that exceed what the handloading manuals state. You gain very little power in relation to the abuse the gun (and perhaps yourself) sustains. The guns were designed to operate in a specific power range.
If you need more power, ie big game hunting, get a larger caliber.
The Security six is a more compact gun, and is lighter than the GP100. You will experience more recoil than with the GP100.
A gun that I know will take a lot of shooting with max (but not above max) .357 loads - the Ruger Blackhawk.
tech
Member
I guess when I say "hot" I mean the most powerfull comercially(SP?) available ammo.
Nightcrawler
Member
WESHOOT2 will give you a better answer than I. But, the GP100 is a larger frame than the Security Six, and thus will be stronger. If I were going to shoot a steady diet of factory hunting loads and Georgia Arms' "deerstoppers" (158gr @ 1500fps), I'd go for the GP.
However, the Security Six, as I understand it, is still stronger than any equivalent Smith & Wesson K-Frame....
However, the Security Six, as I understand it, is still stronger than any equivalent Smith & Wesson K-Frame....
tech
Member
So I can shoot some the factory hot stuff, just don't overdo it.
Nightcrawler
Member
Yeah, prettymuch, AFAIK. If you can AFFORD more than a little of the hot factory stuff (typically $15-20 for a box of 20) then you can afford a different gun. Heh.
tech
Member
Nightcrawler, I agree with that wholeheartedly. I am curious about 'this SIX' because it is the first pistol I ever bought(jeeze that was 18 years ago). I recently had Teddy Jacobson do his magic on it and want it to last for my grandkids. I will probably start looking for a low mileage GP to have fun with and just lightly use the S.S.
Mike
Mike
JohnBT
Member
I bought a Police Service Six (the 4" fixed sight model) in 1985. I've shot nearly every kind of commercially manufactured ammo through it and it's in excellent shape. It's never required any work and it locks up perfectly to this day.
Most of what I've used have been the 125 grain .357 loads - the hot stuff. I'm not claiming I'm shooting 4k or 5k rounds a year, but I've never babied the gun either.
The only reason Ruger quit making the Six line was because it was too expensive to manufacture.
John
Most of what I've used have been the 125 grain .357 loads - the hot stuff. I'm not claiming I'm shooting 4k or 5k rounds a year, but I've never babied the gun either.
The only reason Ruger quit making the Six line was because it was too expensive to manufacture.
John
i second the point made by johnBT...the reason ruger stopped production of the "six" in favor of the gp-100 was production cost.
i would not hesitate feeding a "six" a steady diet of 125gr .357mag loads (or my favorite the speer 140gr mag load).
if i wanted to feed a steady diet of the original .357mag load (158gr @ 1500fps) or loads >180gr, i'd go with the gp-100
i would not hesitate feeding a "six" a steady diet of 125gr .357mag loads (or my favorite the speer 140gr mag load).
if i wanted to feed a steady diet of the original .357mag load (158gr @ 1500fps) or loads >180gr, i'd go with the gp-100
tech
Member
Thanks, guys I will not worry anymore. I thought that the Sixes were pretty strong. I think I should probably get a GP 100 just in case though......
Mike
Mike
"i second the point made by johnBT...the reason ruger stopped production of the "six" in favor of the gp-100 was production cost."
Why is the GP100 cheaper to manufacture than the Security Six?
I think that Ruger made a mistake by not offering a smaller framed version of th GP100, but I like the design better. I like the crane lock-up, and the trigger rebound is superior to the Security Six. I have had three Security Sixes. They are good guns. I have also broken two rebound springs in these guns. The pressure on the springs is primarily on the first and last coils of the spring. A little dry firing heats those coils, and they break.
I like the grip frame on the GP100 better also. It is such a grip frame which allows almost any concievable grip design. This means that even the smallest hands up to the largest hands can be accomadated with this design.
I just wish that Ruger had made a Security-Six size .357 with a GP100 design. But manufactures are straying from medium framed .357. I suppose that this is because ammo manufacturers have decided that we need to be shooting magnums that illuminate the night while producing untamable recoil.
Why is the GP100 cheaper to manufacture than the Security Six?
I think that Ruger made a mistake by not offering a smaller framed version of th GP100, but I like the design better. I like the crane lock-up, and the trigger rebound is superior to the Security Six. I have had three Security Sixes. They are good guns. I have also broken two rebound springs in these guns. The pressure on the springs is primarily on the first and last coils of the spring. A little dry firing heats those coils, and they break.
I like the grip frame on the GP100 better also. It is such a grip frame which allows almost any concievable grip design. This means that even the smallest hands up to the largest hands can be accomadated with this design.
I just wish that Ruger had made a Security-Six size .357 with a GP100 design. But manufactures are straying from medium framed .357. I suppose that this is because ammo manufacturers have decided that we need to be shooting magnums that illuminate the night while producing untamable recoil.
JohnBT
Member
As to the details of why - I don't know. I'd guess that Ruger refined their production processes over the years and began using more machines and less manpower.
There was an interview of Mr. Ruger in a gun magazine some years ago. He said that they probably never made a penny's profit off any of the Six-series guns in all the years they made them. He added that this calculation included the design costs, start-up costs and manufacturing costs. But...in the end they built the gun they wanted to build.
John
There was an interview of Mr. Ruger in a gun magazine some years ago. He said that they probably never made a penny's profit off any of the Six-series guns in all the years they made them. He added that this calculation included the design costs, start-up costs and manufacturing costs. But...in the end they built the gun they wanted to build.
John
tech
Member
Dobe, I was wondering the same thing. How is the larger GP cheaper to make than the Six? Do you think they went with a lesser steel therefore had to use more mass?
Mike
Mike
mohican
Member
Dobe: the Security Six required a lot of Hand fitted parts, and a lot of machining compared to the GP100.
Bill Ruger said he lost a little bit of money on every Security Six he made, but he kept the gun in production until the GP100 was in production.
About that time (mid-late 80s) the 9mm autoloader took off for law enforcement, and then the 40S&W.
Gun makers are not going to tool up for a new medium frame .357 magnum because there is not a large market for them.
Ruger does, However make the compact SP101, a 5 shot .357 mag DA revolver, with fixed sights. Many people love it as a concealed carry gun.
Why do you see large frame revolvers - because the revolver market is now aimed at the hunters, and most people hunting with a revolver want a larger frame and at least 6 inches of barrel.
Bill Ruger said he lost a little bit of money on every Security Six he made, but he kept the gun in production until the GP100 was in production.
About that time (mid-late 80s) the 9mm autoloader took off for law enforcement, and then the 40S&W.
Gun makers are not going to tool up for a new medium frame .357 magnum because there is not a large market for them.
Ruger does, However make the compact SP101, a 5 shot .357 mag DA revolver, with fixed sights. Many people love it as a concealed carry gun.
Why do you see large frame revolvers - because the revolver market is now aimed at the hunters, and most people hunting with a revolver want a larger frame and at least 6 inches of barrel.
the security six was a much more conventional design then the gp-100, and as such required more hand fitting after the casting was cleaned up. two examples would be:
1. the grip frame - the gp-100 requires no fitting/polishing to fit the stocks, because it is enclosed
2. the ejection rod - it does not lock into the front and does not pass through the cylinder...it just pushes a lever, maybe more pieces but less hand fitting
i read the same article, the interview with bill ruger was very interesting...especially the objective in designing the #1, simply the best single shot they could produce
1. the grip frame - the gp-100 requires no fitting/polishing to fit the stocks, because it is enclosed
2. the ejection rod - it does not lock into the front and does not pass through the cylinder...it just pushes a lever, maybe more pieces but less hand fitting
i read the same article, the interview with bill ruger was very interesting...especially the objective in designing the #1, simply the best single shot they could produce
Sorry, not trying to be coy, but what article? Personally, I feel that the GP100 is a more modern design than the Security Six, and I might add that I like the Security Six (with the exception of the trigger rebound spring/system).
My first DA revolver was a Security Six. I shot 1000's of rounds out of it. I purchased three of them. I have also purchased two GP100's, and have found them to be very good DA revolvers also. The crane lock-up is an additional bene. And as mentioned before. I really like the grip frame of the GP100 better than the Security Six, because I have small hands.
My first DA revolver was a Security Six. I shot 1000's of rounds out of it. I purchased three of them. I have also purchased two GP100's, and have found them to be very good DA revolvers also. The crane lock-up is an additional bene. And as mentioned before. I really like the grip frame of the GP100 better than the Security Six, because I have small hands.
Mid Sized .357's
Mohican:
"Why do you see large frame revolvers - because the revolver market is now aimed at the hunters, and most people hunting with a revolver want a larger frame and at least 6 inches of barrel."
Mohican, you may be right. I don't know for sure, and your conclusion would be a near correct as any that I could imaginie. But I have a theory, and I must confess that I have nothing upon which to base this theory. Therefore, I will admit up front that this is my opinion, and not necessarily accurate.
It seems from what I remember in the late sixties and seventies , there was a concern by some that the .357 magnum was not the man stopper that it should be. Ammunition manufacturers began making hotter and hotter rounds. There soon were warnings about the the K-Frames and continual shooting with "hot" rounds. Police were still carrying revolvers for the most part, and the hot rounds were difficult to handle in the lightweight revolvers. Fast second shots were near impossible as opposed to the older ammo.
It didn't take Smith and Wesson long to realized that the L frame would be a success among the police departments. The bottom rib on the barrel would also give the revolver additional weight to counteract the recoil. While I realize that others such as Colt had been producing larger .357' s with underlugged barrels, it was S & W which had the police market. I think that this had something to do with the demise of the mid sized .357 (hotter ammo).
I believe that S&W still makes the Mod 66. That is also a good revolver.
Mohican:
"Why do you see large frame revolvers - because the revolver market is now aimed at the hunters, and most people hunting with a revolver want a larger frame and at least 6 inches of barrel."
Mohican, you may be right. I don't know for sure, and your conclusion would be a near correct as any that I could imaginie. But I have a theory, and I must confess that I have nothing upon which to base this theory. Therefore, I will admit up front that this is my opinion, and not necessarily accurate.
It seems from what I remember in the late sixties and seventies , there was a concern by some that the .357 magnum was not the man stopper that it should be. Ammunition manufacturers began making hotter and hotter rounds. There soon were warnings about the the K-Frames and continual shooting with "hot" rounds. Police were still carrying revolvers for the most part, and the hot rounds were difficult to handle in the lightweight revolvers. Fast second shots were near impossible as opposed to the older ammo.
It didn't take Smith and Wesson long to realized that the L frame would be a success among the police departments. The bottom rib on the barrel would also give the revolver additional weight to counteract the recoil. While I realize that others such as Colt had been producing larger .357' s with underlugged barrels, it was S & W which had the police market. I think that this had something to do with the demise of the mid sized .357 (hotter ammo).
I believe that S&W still makes the Mod 66. That is also a good revolver.
mohican
Member
dobe:
with LEO market at least 90% autoloaders, the questions about "hot" law enforcement loads for .357 are almost moot, although there are "hotter" commercial loads that are aimed at the hunting market. With many LEOs carrying 9s, concerns about the lack of stopping power in the .357 are humorous. Of course, the .41 mag was developed to give state troopers more power than the .357 offered without battering the guns of the time period. (it's now exclusevly a hunting round)
The article in question was in shooting times a few years back, I'll have to search my archives and still see if I have that issue. I think I've also read similar interviews in American Rifleman.
I've never had any problems with my Security Six.
I've went from the factory wood grips to pachymars to Hogue Monogrips, which I really like.
Another thing about the Security Six, at least in my hands it is as much of a "natural pointer" as the Colt SAAs, and much more of a natural pointer than my blackhawk or super blackhawk. Go figure.
The Security Six shoots where it points. Not so with the GP100, at least in my hands.
Is that important, well lets just say that it has impressed a few people, bouncing pop cans at 40 paces without aiming.......
And since it has been retired to "house gun" status, if I ever need it, I have confidence in it.
Back to the original topic - IMO, if it needs to be done with a .357 mag, you can do it with "standard" loads. If you need more, buy a bigger gun.
with LEO market at least 90% autoloaders, the questions about "hot" law enforcement loads for .357 are almost moot, although there are "hotter" commercial loads that are aimed at the hunting market. With many LEOs carrying 9s, concerns about the lack of stopping power in the .357 are humorous. Of course, the .41 mag was developed to give state troopers more power than the .357 offered without battering the guns of the time period. (it's now exclusevly a hunting round)
The article in question was in shooting times a few years back, I'll have to search my archives and still see if I have that issue. I think I've also read similar interviews in American Rifleman.
I've never had any problems with my Security Six.
I've went from the factory wood grips to pachymars to Hogue Monogrips, which I really like.
Another thing about the Security Six, at least in my hands it is as much of a "natural pointer" as the Colt SAAs, and much more of a natural pointer than my blackhawk or super blackhawk. Go figure.
The Security Six shoots where it points. Not so with the GP100, at least in my hands.
Is that important, well lets just say that it has impressed a few people, bouncing pop cans at 40 paces without aiming.......
And since it has been retired to "house gun" status, if I ever need it, I have confidence in it.
Back to the original topic - IMO, if it needs to be done with a .357 mag, you can do it with "standard" loads. If you need more, buy a bigger gun.
"with LEO market at least 90% autoloaders, the questions about "hot" law enforcement loads for .357 are almost moot, although there are "hotter" commercial loads that are aimed at the hunting market. With many LEOs carrying 9s, concerns about the lack of stopping power in the .357 are humorous. Of course, the .41 mag was developed to give state troopers more power than the .357 offered without battering the guns of the time period. (it's now exclusevly a hunting round)"
You are right about the above, but I really was referencing the demise of the mid size as a result of the late 60's and 70's before the auto completely took over.
At that time the .357 "hot" loads were made a little too hot for the K-Frames. The .41 was to be answer, and the ammo manufactures made this round too hot also. As a result of factory offered ammo, the .41 wasn't accepted well either. Let's face it. That's alot of fire coming from a 4" tube.
And, yes it is a little funny now that LEO are carrying 9mm and .40 cals. that anyone ever really questioned the ability of the .357 for its intended defense use.
Things go 'round in circles.
You are right about the above, but I really was referencing the demise of the mid size as a result of the late 60's and 70's before the auto completely took over.
At that time the .357 "hot" loads were made a little too hot for the K-Frames. The .41 was to be answer, and the ammo manufactures made this round too hot also. As a result of factory offered ammo, the .41 wasn't accepted well either. Let's face it. That's alot of fire coming from a 4" tube.
And, yes it is a little funny now that LEO are carrying 9mm and .40 cals. that anyone ever really questioned the ability of the .357 for its intended defense use.
Things go 'round in circles.
braindead0
Member
Why buy another gun when the GP-100 can easily handle pushing anything from 110gr@2000fps up to 200gr@1300+fps without even going over max pressure and do a bit better if you don't mind pushing the envelope a bit..
I think that most modern .357 loads are underpowered, except for your specialty ammo of course.
I think there are reasons for 'buying a bigger gun' but needing more isn't one of them.. unless you're looking for a bigger hole..
dobe - i believe the article i read was in shooting times too...it was years ago and had the ruger m-77 and a #1 (or red label) on the cover.
until recently, the trend has been to download the .357mag from it's original loading designed to be fired from the m-27 8.375" barrel, because it was battering all the guns too much...this was before the introduction of the midframe.
the K-frame wasn't designed to take the constant battering of the .357 mag...the concept, as put forth by bill jordan was to practice with the .38 spl and carry the .357mag loads. not only were the .357 hard on the frame, they were also having problems with the cylinders locking up on the early m-66 (stainless problem)
ruger addressed these areas with the "six" family, but it wasn't "overbuilt" enough in the ruger tradition. this and the economic factors of manufacturing the "six" lead to the gp-100 which is the most overbuilt mid size .357.
smith introduce their L-frame to address the same problems, but also as an answer to the colt python in competition. the bull barreled K-frames were without equal, but in "leg matches the m-19 did not have the barrel weight or front sight height to match the python in PPC/NRA shooting. the L-frame offered the underlug of the python and a higher front sight option for a "neck hold" sight picture.
ruger was geared up to cut heavily into smith's police market with the gp-100 (cost) when the market turned to the wundernines.
it wasn't so much a matter of "stopping" power as "fire" power which sounded the death knell for the mid-sized .357...that and the inability of folks to master the DA trigger pull and reloading procedure of the wheelgun.
the .41 mag, using the police load (210gr SWC @ 900fps) is very controlable out of a 4" m-57 or m-58...but it is a big gun and requires a bigger hand for a smooth DA trigger pull
until recently, the trend has been to download the .357mag from it's original loading designed to be fired from the m-27 8.375" barrel, because it was battering all the guns too much...this was before the introduction of the midframe.
the K-frame wasn't designed to take the constant battering of the .357 mag...the concept, as put forth by bill jordan was to practice with the .38 spl and carry the .357mag loads. not only were the .357 hard on the frame, they were also having problems with the cylinders locking up on the early m-66 (stainless problem)
ruger addressed these areas with the "six" family, but it wasn't "overbuilt" enough in the ruger tradition. this and the economic factors of manufacturing the "six" lead to the gp-100 which is the most overbuilt mid size .357.
smith introduce their L-frame to address the same problems, but also as an answer to the colt python in competition. the bull barreled K-frames were without equal, but in "leg matches the m-19 did not have the barrel weight or front sight height to match the python in PPC/NRA shooting. the L-frame offered the underlug of the python and a higher front sight option for a "neck hold" sight picture.
ruger was geared up to cut heavily into smith's police market with the gp-100 (cost) when the market turned to the wundernines.
it wasn't so much a matter of "stopping" power as "fire" power which sounded the death knell for the mid-sized .357...that and the inability of folks to master the DA trigger pull and reloading procedure of the wheelgun.
the .41 mag, using the police load (210gr SWC @ 900fps) is very controlable out of a 4" m-57 or m-58...but it is a big gun and requires a bigger hand for a smooth DA trigger pull
mohican
Member
Braindead: I'll agree, The big 3 (remington, Winchester, CCI/spear) tend to load on the conservative side. Federal pushes the envelope a bit more, and smaller commercial outfits like Corbon and Blackhills have "hot" purpose specific loads.
That being said, I handload about 95% of the .357 loads that I shoot. I will load at the max listed loads, but I don't load hotter than the manuals say. It's not a case of the gun being strong enough, sometimes it's whether or not the brass is strong enough. In my younger years I "pushed the envelope" with the .357 mag and found that How much do you gain "outside the envelope" when reloading? I doubt if a deer will notice that extra grain of powder one way or another. What you can't do safely is turn a .357 mag into a .357max. Based on reloading manuals I'll restate my case : if you think you need a load that is above the maximum listed load, get a bigger gun.
Neither here nor there, but when Ohio became enlightened enough in 1985 to allow us to hunt deer with handguns, .357 mag and larger, I had success the first couple years with a .357 mag 6" barrel Blackhawk. I was shooting max loads of 2400 with a hornady 158gr JHP. And it wasn't a loss of shot game that made me go up to a 44 mag, that was just natural progression.
Now if they would let us hunt with lever action carbines chambered in pistol cartridges, I'd be even happier. I'd love to carry my Marlin 1894 44 mag in the woods.
That being said, I handload about 95% of the .357 loads that I shoot. I will load at the max listed loads, but I don't load hotter than the manuals say. It's not a case of the gun being strong enough, sometimes it's whether or not the brass is strong enough. In my younger years I "pushed the envelope" with the .357 mag and found that How much do you gain "outside the envelope" when reloading? I doubt if a deer will notice that extra grain of powder one way or another. What you can't do safely is turn a .357 mag into a .357max. Based on reloading manuals I'll restate my case : if you think you need a load that is above the maximum listed load, get a bigger gun.
Neither here nor there, but when Ohio became enlightened enough in 1985 to allow us to hunt deer with handguns, .357 mag and larger, I had success the first couple years with a .357 mag 6" barrel Blackhawk. I was shooting max loads of 2400 with a hornady 158gr JHP. And it wasn't a loss of shot game that made me go up to a 44 mag, that was just natural progression.
Now if they would let us hunt with lever action carbines chambered in pistol cartridges, I'd be even happier. I'd love to carry my Marlin 1894 44 mag in the woods.
braindead0
Member
Bear in mind also that the 'maximum listed' in one manual may not be a proper .357 magnum max load. For a while there some manuals listed the .357 max pressure of 35,000CUP when it's really 45,000CUP (35,000 PSI).
But I doubt you'd want to shoot much 'real' .357 mag max loads in a titanium snubby..if it didn't trash the gun it'd sure trash your wrist!
But I doubt you'd want to shoot much 'real' .357 mag max loads in a titanium snubby..if it didn't trash the gun it'd sure trash your wrist!
Poohgyrr
Member
Factory loads should be fine in either model.
That does not include the Freedom Arms specific loads, factory loaded for that revolver. Kind of like the 45 Colt loads for Rugers vs Colt SAA's. I had a Security Six for years, and still have a Speed Six that works fine.
I still think you should get a Smith..
That does not include the Freedom Arms specific loads, factory loaded for that revolver. Kind of like the 45 Colt loads for Rugers vs Colt SAA's. I had a Security Six for years, and still have a Speed Six that works fine.
I still think you should get a Smith..
- Status
