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

[zxcvbob]

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

It fits in a K-frame holster.

 

[PabloJ]

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]

The Smiths are good guns but, I'd rather have the Ruger. I think they are heavy duty.

 

[CraigC]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[CraigC]

You're talking very simplistically about two very different parts but whatever dude.

 

[CPLofMARINES]

 

[skidder]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Jaymo]

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]

I like the K-frame size.

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




The same 4" with rubber grips.

 

[hAkron]

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




The same 4" with rubber grips.

You have a great collection there!!

 

[Confederate]

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.

​

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.




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




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




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.




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

.

 

[triplebike]

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]

There is a scandium L frame (386) but all of the 686 pluses are stainless steel.

 

[joneb]

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]

^^ 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.