Security-Six Forcing Cone

[Confederate]

Before I send this Ruger Security-Six back to have it worked on, I want to make sure it really needs it. My first thought was that it does need work, but here's the problem. Someone during the production phase ground down part of the forcing cone. Inspecing the gun closely, there doesn't seem to be a reason it was done; it wasn't for fit (at least on this revolver).

I know that Smith K-frame guns have a chunk out at the bottom, but then their forcing cones were known to crack. This is the first Ruger I've found like this, so I need some advice from someone who knows Ruger revolvers pretty well. And while I'm sending it back, I also thought about asking them to replace it with a 6-inch tube (since it would most likely require a new barrel anyway).

Here are the photos. Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks!

 

[MCgunner]

I don't think you'll have a problem, but then, I did have a Smith crack there once.

 

[kahr404life]

I think it's fine as well. Is that the only reason you are wanting it repaired. If in doubt contact ruger and they will set you straight.

 

[olywa]

I have a stainless 4" Security Six that has the same issue. Mine isn't missing the steel at the bottom edge of the forcing cone but it is cut away (bevelled?) on the left outside edge just like yours. I too was wondering how much of a problem this was but decided that as long as the inner surface of the forcing cone is intact that I probably will be okay.

However I would be interested to hear what Ruger tells you if you contact them. I've been keeping my eyes open for a 6" barrel as well. I used to own a 6" Security Six and I still miss it.

It's kind of spooky how much your situation mirrors my own. I've been thinking about posting a message almost exactly like yours.

 

[Confederate]

It's a beautiful gun. If I don't have to have it repaired, I may just decide to shoot it one of these days. I love the Security-Six and the 6-inch is, in my opinion, the ideal trail gun. Too bad there's only two choices that are viable. The Security-Six and the Smith 66. Both are fabulous revolvers. Just fabulous.

The 2.75-inch gun also is great for CCW. Why anyone would take an SP-101 over a Security- or Speed-Six is absolutely beyond me.

Again, thanks. I'm trying to see if I can get someone at Ruger to give me an e-mail so I can send a photo, but they don't want to give me one even though I damn well know they have one.

 

[olywa]

That's a beautiful Security Six you've got there Confederate. My 4" is a little older, pre-warning vintage. I picked it up used after pining for the 6" model which I foolishly sold. I shoot the heck out of mine though, at least 250 rounds a month. I've polished the innards, put a Hogue rubber grip on it, and replaced the rear sight with a Millett adjustable. I still want to find a 6" in good shape so I peruse the gun shows and look for the perfect deal. One day...

Don't discount the SP101 though. I bought a 2 1/4" .357 last year and I like it very much. I prefer the design of the Six series but this SP101 is real tank, and a pleasure to shoot as well. So much so that I am looking for a 4" in .32 H&R now.

 

[jad0110]

Why anyone would take an SP-101 over a Security- or Speed-Six is absolutely beyond me.

I'm a pretty thin guy, and the reduced width of the SP-101 would probably make it easier/more comfortable to conceal for IWB carry.

Though I have not ruled a 2.75" Security or Service Six, or a K Frame Smith 2.5 or 3" for IWB.

That's a nice looking Security Six by the way! Odd that the forcing cone has been cut out, I too wonder why that was necessary.

 

[MCgunner]

Well, there is the Taurus, ya know. I really like mine.

I like the 3" SP101, but I think a 6 shot gun with an adjustable sight is more my style. I really like having the adjustable sight to regulate for light or heavy loads. At 6", 210 lbs, I don't have a problem concealing a K frame gun. I know all the self defense gurus think adjustables are just something to break off, but I have NEVER had a rear sight damaged on a gun. I don't use it for a hammer, don't go smackin' it into tree trunks, I take care of my guns. You ain't gonna have a problem with a sight if you ain't a total boob.

I wish Ruger would bring back the Security Six, but I don't think it'll ever happen. It's a lot handier than the GP100 and a good compromise in size from the SP101 to the GP. I think there is a hole there in Ruger's line up.

 

[slick6]

confederate:

It's interesting to have noticed, that your beautiful Security-Six, has the "Heavy barrel" version of the 2-3/4" barrel. I have several Security-Sixes but, most only have the standard barrel. I have only one Speed-Six, with the "Heavy barrel" 2-3/4" barrel.

 

[Confederate]

Yes, it does have a whoppin' large barrel on it compared to my mother's Security-Six. (She has a 2.75-inch version as well, which she loves.) Here's a front view of it with the cylinder out. It doesn't appear to have even been test fired or, if it has, there's no sign.

 

[GunNut]

Send the pictures to Ruger and let them decide if it is ok.

I'm pretty sure that is how it left the factory.

Steve

Also, how about a pic from the right side(opposite the cylinder release button) when the cylinder is closed?

 

[Confederate]

Well, I can't get any e-mail addresses from Ruger. I suppose I can give them the website link and let them take a look see.

The question is, there's no reason the cut should be there as I've examined how the gun closes and the entire cone would fit with no trouble. I'm just concerned that the cut will substantially weaken the gun when fired with 125gr JHPs. It did with the Smiths. And one of the reasons I bought this Ruger was for its strength.

 

[rbmcmjr]

That flat is in there to provide clearance for the gas ring on the cylinder, isn't it? Close the action and look to see what room there is between the bottom of the barrel and the ring. I bet you'll find that if the cut wasn't there, the cylinder wouldn't fit.

Leave it alone.

 

[Confederate]

Well, again, that's the reason the cut is there in a Smith. And it's also the reason that many Smiths end up with cracked forcing cones. The 686 and Rugers were designed to fit without hacking away in that critical area.

When I close the gun and hold it sideways up to a strong light, I open it and close it and there appears not to be any need for that cut-away section. I've also inspected many, many Security- and Speed-Sixes in my life and none of them have a cut-away like this.

You put a lot of 125-gr JHPs through this gun and the forcing cone may crack. Some Security-Sixes did have problems with cracked forcing cones, but mostly on the older stainless ones, back when everyone was having problems with stainless.

This is the forcing cone on my mother's Security-Six (also a 2.75-inch
barrel). Note how it's complete, with no cutaway.

.

 

[slick6]

confederate:

1)I agree with you about the forcing cone on your Security-Six not being normal.

2)All of my Security/Service/Speed-Sixes have forcing cones that look like on your mother's Security-Six.

3)Despite the high probability of your Security-Six still functioning OK, with your existing barrel forcing cone, since your gun is in virtually, NIB condition, I would definately recommend that you send your Security-Six back to Ruger for a barrel replacement! I would indicate to Ruger that the quality of the machining to the barrel on your Security-Six, doesn't match the same quality, that you have observed to be normal for these revolvers! I don't think that Ruger will squabble about what you would be requesting here? Their service has always been excellent, in my experience, in the past!

 

[jad0110]

Confederate,

Perhaps a stupid question, but could it have something to do with the fact that your's is a heavy barrel and your mother's is a std? Unlikely I know, but I'm just trying to throw some stuff out to provoke everyones thoughts on this. The cutout is odd, it'd be like my 686 having a flat spot on it's forcing cone.

Regardless, I am avoiding shooting 125 grain stuff in my 686 until I get into handloading this spring, at which point I'll be able to load gentler 125s for practice. I know, like the GP 100 it is built to take the abuse of the lighter Magnums, but I love my 686 and I'd rather not push it. I certainly wouldn't subject a sweet, out of production K Frame to 125s. 158s work fine in any case.

Of course, today's 125 factory ammo is loaded weaker than it was 20 years ago. Most don't break 1400 fps.

 

[rem1187a]

I just checked my 2 3/4" heavy and there is no cut out. Not sure if that helps or not. Would have to agree that you should at the least contact ruger.

 

[slick6]

None of the heavy barrel Six-Series Ruger revolvers that I have ever owned, had a forcing cone with the cutout in it-nor, were these any different than for the forcing cone on a standard barrel.

Another point is, that the threaded area through the frame for the barrel, is the same size and therefore, all of the forcing cones for both the standard and for the heavy barrels are the same size. Only the barrel itself(Including wider ribbing and a wider, ejector rod shroud)was made heavier-for the purpose of adding weight where it was needed, for easier shooting with better control of the gun!

Bill Ruger had a reputation for over building his guns for strength. And, he had intended his Six-Series revolvers to be much stronger than comparable medium frame size revolvers. He never designed these revolvers to have that flat machined off the forcing cone, like on the "Weaker" S&W K-frames! IMHO, a flat like this, found on any Six-Series revolver, had to be due to a "Botched" machining job done at the Ruger factory!

 

[Confederate]

All Security-Sixes have the same forcing cones regardless of barrel size, etc. I called Ruger today and they don't seem to want to fix it, though I'm sure they will. Again, looking at it I can't for the life of me tell why they did it. It doesn't affect the fit at all.