OldWolf
Member
What is the difference between these two models? I know the S6 is not made anymore but why is the GP better, if it is?
Security Six vs. GP-100
- Thread starter OldWolf
- Start date
- Status
tomkatz
Member
I would say the security six compares to the smith k frame, and the GP100 is more like the L frame, strength wise some folks say the GP is more like an N frame, very stout design......tom
RON in PA
Member
The SS had the same problems with 125 grain .357 loads that the Smith K frames do. Ruger wanted a more robust revolver that could better handle that hot load, thus the GP100.
Sharps Shooter
Member
I read the same thing about the Security Sixes having problems with the hot 125 grain .357 loads, so Ruger came out with the GP-100. Whether or not the GP-100 is better kind of depends on how you're going to use it.
My son-in-law has a GP and it certainly appears to be typical Ruger strong. It's accurate too. But it's heavier than my Security Six and I don't like it's looks as well. I almost always shoot cast, 168 grain Keith SWCs at moderate velocity in my Security Six, so the hot 125 grain thing has never bothered me. My Security Six is just a bum around in the hills gun anyway. In my opinion, there are better guns for self/home defense, big game hunting, or most competition shooting than a .357 Magnum revolver. But that's just my opinion. :
My son-in-law has a GP and it certainly appears to be typical Ruger strong. It's accurate too. But it's heavier than my Security Six and I don't like it's looks as well. I almost always shoot cast, 168 grain Keith SWCs at moderate velocity in my Security Six, so the hot 125 grain thing has never bothered me. My Security Six is just a bum around in the hills gun anyway. In my opinion, there are better guns for self/home defense, big game hunting, or most competition shooting than a .357 Magnum revolver. But that's just my opinion. :
The Security Six was far stronger than the S&W K-frame! Ruger didn't replace the Security Six with the GP100 because it was not strong enough-but instead, because S&W had introduced the new L-frame, to offer a new gun that could withstand the continuous firing of hot .357 loads(Since their K-frame was never designed for this!)and, Ruger just wanted to compete with the S&W L-frame to offer a competitive revolver, in the gun market! Although the GP100 is somewhat stronger than the Security Six, by virtue of being a larger revolver, this extra strength, was never deemed "Necessary" by Ruger(Quite unlike the situation with S&W where the L-frame was deemed necessary, to withstand the continuous firing of hot .357 loads!)because the Security Six had been designed from the very beginning, to withstand the continuous firing of these hot .357 loads! History has proven the Security Six to be a very strong(Medium frame).357 revolver! Upon the introduction of the Security Six(In 1971)Ruger had set out to build a medium(K-frame sized, revolver!)that could exceed the strength of the S&W K-frame, and prove not to have the same weakness(Under the severe shooting stress of firing the hot .357 loads continuously)! There are many shooter's that will attest to the superior strength of the Security Six, in comparison to the S&W K-frame! Remember, that the Security Six was designed as a .357 magnum revolver-but, the S&W K-frame was originally designed long before the .357 magnum was ever invented and later was beefed up and given better heat treatment to then become a .357 magnum revolver! However, these K-frames were only designed for target practice with .38 special's with the .357 magnum rounds reserved for serious business(But never on a continuous basis!)!
It sort of depends on what you mean by "better". The GP is a stronger revolver but the old Sixes were not exactly dainty. As it happens I did erode out the forcing cones on two of them with continued heavy use of the 125 gr. factory loads. The guns kept working fine but spitting got to be pretty bothersome. I had both rebarrelled at the factory; one gratis and one for a very reasonable fee.
I have a GP with a wonderfully smooth DA; but it is a lot of gun to wear and consequently a well worn Security Six is my daily sidekick. 4" and 38 ounces are just about as much as I want to lug around.
I have a GP with a wonderfully smooth DA; but it is a lot of gun to wear and consequently a well worn Security Six is my daily sidekick. 4" and 38 ounces are just about as much as I want to lug around.
I just remembered....
A very close friend of mine is a retired PA state trooper. I can distinctly remember when he bought his service Colt revolver from the state, because they were being issued new Ruger Security Six revolvers.
Now, it seems to me that he told me at a later date of problems with the Ruger guns. IIRC, after sustained firing some of the guns experianced warped ejector rods that tied the guns up. All of this was just about the time the GP100 came out.
This was a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure that's how it was told to me. But - I've never seen it mentioned anywhere else so....
A very close friend of mine is a retired PA state trooper. I can distinctly remember when he bought his service Colt revolver from the state, because they were being issued new Ruger Security Six revolvers.
Now, it seems to me that he told me at a later date of problems with the Ruger guns. IIRC, after sustained firing some of the guns experianced warped ejector rods that tied the guns up. All of this was just about the time the GP100 came out.
This was a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure that's how it was told to me. But - I've never seen it mentioned anywhere else so....
OldWolf
Member
Very informative comments. Used SS's seem to go for about $200 or so and new GP's for $350 or more. I was just wondering if it was worth the extra $$ for a GP.
My uses would mostly be for target practice and a camping gun. I rarely reload at maximum pressures anyway. I am thinking I would be happy with a 4" Stainless Security Six if one comes my way before a GP does.
The GP does have the "triple lock up" design, unlike the SS. I am sure this is a good feature but is it necessary for my stated uses? Probably not if I have to pay $150+ for it.
PS-My rare heavy 357 loads are reserved for my Super 357 Blackhawk (357 mag Blackhawk w/SB grip frame, trigger, hammer - a very nice handling 357 if you've never tried or seen one)
My uses would mostly be for target practice and a camping gun. I rarely reload at maximum pressures anyway. I am thinking I would be happy with a 4" Stainless Security Six if one comes my way before a GP does.
The GP does have the "triple lock up" design, unlike the SS. I am sure this is a good feature but is it necessary for my stated uses? Probably not if I have to pay $150+ for it.
PS-My rare heavy 357 loads are reserved for my Super 357 Blackhawk (357 mag Blackhawk w/SB grip frame, trigger, hammer - a very nice handling 357 if you've never tried or seen one)
jaybar
Member
Differnces between security-six and GP-100
The various xx-six's had a cylinder lockup very similar to S&W K-frames. The cylinder locks up on the front of the ejector rod and at the rear in the recoil plate. The ejector rod was threaded into the cylinder, just like a S&W and moved back and forth to effect the lock-up. The SP's GP's, RH, and SRH have a beefy front cylinder latch on the crane, the ejector rod doesn't thread into the cylinder and the lock-up on the recoil plate is achieved through a separate floating, spring-loaded coaxial pin internal to the cylinder. Except for size, the internals of the mechanism are strikingly similar. The main internal difference is that the trigger return spring on the xx-six's is a hairpin type spring that provides constant torque around the trigger pivot pin, and the trigger guard latch spring is separate. The trigger return spring on the SP's, GP's and SRH are coil springs that act on the rear of the trigger providing variable force perpendicular to the trigger pivot pin (similar to a S&W) . The other end of the spring provides pressure on the trigger guard latch. The mechanism of the Redhawk differs from the Super Redhawk in that the trigger return spring on the Redhawk also serves as the mainspring, the cylinder latching is the same as as the SP's GP's and SRH
The various xx-six's had a cylinder lockup very similar to S&W K-frames. The cylinder locks up on the front of the ejector rod and at the rear in the recoil plate. The ejector rod was threaded into the cylinder, just like a S&W and moved back and forth to effect the lock-up. The SP's GP's, RH, and SRH have a beefy front cylinder latch on the crane, the ejector rod doesn't thread into the cylinder and the lock-up on the recoil plate is achieved through a separate floating, spring-loaded coaxial pin internal to the cylinder. Except for size, the internals of the mechanism are strikingly similar. The main internal difference is that the trigger return spring on the xx-six's is a hairpin type spring that provides constant torque around the trigger pivot pin, and the trigger guard latch spring is separate. The trigger return spring on the SP's, GP's and SRH are coil springs that act on the rear of the trigger providing variable force perpendicular to the trigger pivot pin (similar to a S&W) . The other end of the spring provides pressure on the trigger guard latch. The mechanism of the Redhawk differs from the Super Redhawk in that the trigger return spring on the Redhawk also serves as the mainspring, the cylinder latching is the same as as the SP's GP's and SRH
absolute0
Member
Find me someone who can wear out or shoot loose a Security Six and I'll buy 'em a new one
larryf1952
Member
I've shot both Security Sixes and GP100's, and I like them both. All I can say is I bought a Security Six brand new in 1976, and it is now 1 of 4 .357's in my safe. It is also the one that I've shot the most, and I've run many hundreds, if not thousands of rounds through it. It still locks up as tight as the day that I took it out of the box. At one point about 10 years ago, the cylinder seized up on it, but that was due to an accumulation of fouling and grit from many firings and cleanings. I took the cylinder and yoke assembly apart, cleaned and relubed it, and I've had no trouble since.
As a matter of fact, all I've EVER shot out of my Six are 125 JHP's. Except for very briefly, they have all been my handloads. I load them to about 1400fps, so they haven't been "weenie" loads...I practice with what would be considered normal "combat" loads. The gun has withstood the test of time, and is still in excellent shape. Having said that, I do believe that a GP100 is a heavier, stronger gun, and I'd like to have one. But, I don't think that one needs to worry about the strength of a Security Six.
As a matter of fact, all I've EVER shot out of my Six are 125 JHP's. Except for very briefly, they have all been my handloads. I load them to about 1400fps, so they haven't been "weenie" loads...I practice with what would be considered normal "combat" loads. The gun has withstood the test of time, and is still in excellent shape. Having said that, I do believe that a GP100 is a heavier, stronger gun, and I'd like to have one. But, I don't think that one needs to worry about the strength of a Security Six.
Prolong use of hot loads, like full power 357 with 125 HP, will “eat†forcing cone on ANY revolver, including FA 353. The silhouette shooter near by could attest this. Actually, he was shooting 200 gr with GC. After switching to IMR 4227 and reducing those top loads, erosion stopped. So folks, be moderate and even S$W K-frame will give you long time of trouble free service. Silhouette shooters in my club use them for years, with mostly 158-160 gr. TC Saeco, at 1100-1150 fps from 6†barrel. Security Six should last even longer...
- Status
