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

Status
Not open for further replies.
CPLofMARINES

CPLofMARINES

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
302
Location
SE MI
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Size wise the Six series frames are about the size of a K frame strength wise they are more equal to L frame.
 
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.
 
Size wise the Six series frames are about the size of a K frame strength wise they are more equal to L frame.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Isn't the barrel shank on the Six series larger than the K?
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
In Smith's defense the K frame was not originally designed to be a 357...
Click to expand...
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.
 
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 ?????
 
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.
 
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.
 
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????
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Ruger Security Six
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
W.E.G.
W.E.G.
C
  • Locked
Ruger Security-Six
Replies
22
Views
2K
geo57
geo57
O
  • Locked
Security Six vs. GP100
Replies
6
Views
1K
TonyB
T
M
  • Locked
Which S&W's are the K-Frames?
Replies
3
Views
439
smee781
S
O
  • Locked
is my police six a k or l frame??
Replies
14
Views
2K
Blue Brick
Blue Brick
Back
Top