Security/Speed Six Prices

[D.B. Cooper]

And, we all just kind of thought "geez, poor guy, all he can afford is a Ruger. How sad."

Funny how times have changed. On the NEW market these days, the Rugers cost more than the Smiths, at least in the big bore.

 

[Zebraranger]

At the time I wasn't looking for a Security Six because I already had a 4" SS. But, I ran across a unfired NIB 2-3/4" Security Six about 10 years ago and snatched it right up because the price was right. I kept the original grips on it and added a Tyler T. I replaced the original grips on the 4" with some larger wood grips since I shoot the heck out of this one.

 

[Sistema1927]

In my view, that's a $400 gun

That may be what it is worth to you, but in an open market the fair price is the amount an informed seller is willing to accept and an informed buyer is willing to pay.

As has been previously stated they are no longer being made and many folks, self included, find them to be very good firearms.

 

[someguy2800]

In all used guns there is a "gun show/retail store price", and there is a "I know a guy that wants to sell this old gun price". I'm certain they can be found for less than $400 but it won't be from an informed gun dealer. The nice thing is finding someone selling a gun that still has in there mind what it was worth 20 years ago.

 

[Confederate]

The OP's gun is worth the proverbial thousand words.

It doesn't have one ounce more than it needs to have and it's stronger than any other gun in its class! When I first saw it on the shelf of a pawn shop in the late 70s, I had never bought or fired a revolver before. I'd heard of S&W and Colt, but never Ruger, and I was suspicious of the clean no-nonsense lines of the gun. Obviously someone wanted it to sound like "Luger."

Little did I know. I needed to read some reviews. I did, and I made a bee line back to the store before it was gone. Paying cash, I left the pawn shop with it on my front seat. It was the first of many. And that photo really brought back the memory. Why Ruger would ever stop making such a perfect revolver is a stumper. It was so strong and so light. A great carry gun, so far removed from today's boat anchors! An ideal police revolver of it time, it was designed by a genius. You saw it and you thought, "Bill Ruger." You see today's GP-series and you think, "Inlaws." And that's what I suspected happened. Why would anyone screw around with the original?

 

[Madcap_Magician]

I love the Six-series guns, but the Speed Six is my favorite. All variations of them are hard to find now. I've been looking for a 4" and 2.75" .357 for a while. I already have a 3", and I'd dearly love to find another one of those NIB for the safe.

 

[Mr.Revolverguy]

Nothing much really to add over what others have said but I do want to share mine with all these beautiful pictures showing up LOL. I want a speed six to round out the collection but knowing I paid under $600 for the both of these makes it hard for me at today's prices

 

[22-rimfire]

I sold one, used, in '99 for $350. Can't seem to replace it. Stainless 4" Security Sixes are rare as hen's teeth and approaching $600. A Stainless 4" GP100 is about $650. I just can't (won't) pay 95% of the new price of the improved version of the same gun. It's not like Security Sixes are collector items or anything. I'm not buying a Python.

Then I think you should simply get a GP-100 and not worry about it. Check the prices on S&W Model 17's and Model 18's? Many are priced nearly as much as a new 617, especially M18's. I was never a big fan boy of the Ruger 6's. I got a GP-100 when they came out and after I handled one mostly because I like the Python-Diamondback look.

 

[Stugotz]

. . . I got a GP-100 when they came out and after I handled one mostly because I like the Python-Diamondback look.

Hey, no doubt some here own a firearm or two for aesthetic reasons.

That said, I believe most who extol the virtues of the "Six" series Ruger revolvers here are fairly serious and experienced users of the genre.

 

[22-rimfire]

I suspect that is true or what they believe to be true. I might add that I also got the GP-100 because of all the excellent reviews. Ruger revolvers prior to the introduction of the GP were simply not on my radar or a consideration in general (good or not). I was buying only Colts and S&W revolvers and had little interest in what I thought were over built DA revolvers. The GP convinced me to include Ruger and have since purchased pretty much at least one of each model. Now, I have backed off buying guns in general, but I believe that I'll be getting one of the new LCRx's in 22LR.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Hey, no doubt some here own a firearm or two for aesthetic reasons.

That said, I believe most who extol the virtues of the "Six" series Ruger revolvers here are fairly serious and experienced users of the genre.

I'm not an experienced user out collector by any means, but I actually think the Six series looks better than the K-frame or the Colt guns.

Heresy, I know.

 

[22-rimfire]

I'm not an experienced user out collector by any means, but I actually think the Six series looks better than the K-frame or the Colt guns.

Heresy, I know.

Naah. Everyone has their preferences. I love the variety of guns that are available. The six series have a lot in common with the S&W revolvers in terms of looks. For me, in the 70's and 80's, I pretty much viewed Ruger guns the same way that many view Taurus guns these days. That was my view, right or wrong in my limited revolver world view. The GP changed that view for me.

When I started buying handguns, I was interested in 22's first and I didn't want a single action (single six) and the pencil barreled Mark I pistols did nothing for me. My first was an H&R 999 and I shot a lot with a guy that had a Single Six. I have to say that my choice was no where as good as the Ruger Single Six. The H&R experience forever tilted me toward Colts and Smith & Wesson revolvers.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

I pretty much viewed Ruger guns the same way that many view Taurus guns these days.

Now THAT'S [expletive deleted] scary. To think that, in thirty years, Taurus guns might become some sort of highly demanded, sought-after gun. Gives me goose bumps even to think of such insanity.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

I'm glad I opened this post,and I'm grateful for the discussion. There really is more to this than price of gun and age of gun. Having owned a Security Six (and never owned a GP100) I can understand why people like them. I'm also starting to see that perhaps the GP isn't the improvement it was intended to be.

So that helps me swallow the idea of paying such a high price for a Security Six. If it comes to that.

 

[golden]

I bought a Service Six in the original box when I was on a mid size revolver buying path and later a Security SIX, both with 4 inch barrels. I found the Service Six well made and with HOGUE grips, a good shooter. However, it does kick a bit with .357 magnum ammo and I only use the 110 grain ammo. I also have a S&W 681 with a 4 inch and you can feel the difference. Admittedly, I had the 681 MAGNA PORTED and it also has HOGUE'S.
I think the real reason that RUGER brought out the GP 100 was the L-frame S&W revolvers. S&W was discovering that the K-frame could not handle a steady diet of .357 ammo and RUGER was picking up on that business, so they introduced the L- frame 581/586/681/686 and never looked back. This left RUGER with a superior revolver, the SIX series, but a marketing disadvantage.. S&W was really pushing the extra strength of the L-frames over both the K-frames and SIX series and it continued later on when RUGER introduced the GP-100 revolvers with some really funny or silly adds in magazines from both companies.

I shoot the K- frame S&W model 15's a lot as range guns. They are the perfect size .38 Specials with the perfect size grips for me (as long as they are wearing HOGUE'S). They are well balanced and not overly bulky. They are just not strong enough to use as a .357 magnum range gun, at least the ones they used to build.
The RUGER SIX series capitalizes on these strengths with a stronger gun without the extra bulk, but to me, they are now too light to use with either 125 grain hot loads which is what many SD shooters want a .357 magnum for or with heavy bullet hunting loads.
I can really see an advantage in a heavier gun like the S&W 686 or RUGER GP-100.
NOTE: S&W introduced a replacement for the model 19 and 66 .357 magnum revolvers based on the L-frame, but offering 7 shot capacity and only 3 or 4 ounce weight gain and they did poorly on the market, getting dropped after only a few years. I think the extra weight matters to shooters.

If I ever go back to carrying concealed a revolver, the RUGER SIX series has a lot too offer, more than a S&W model 19 or 66 does. I like the 7 shot capacity of the 686+ and the lighter weight of the non-full lugged barrel guns, but they are still a bit bulky.

Jim

 

[22-rimfire]

Now THAT'S [expletive deleted] scary. To think that, in thirty years, Taurus guns might become some sort of highly demanded, sought-after gun. Gives me goose bumps even to think of such insanity.

I think you're missing my point. During the 80's, I didn't want ANY Ruger made firearm because I believed them to be of lesser quality than a comparable Colt or Smith & Wesson revolver. The view has nothing to do with a Taurus. My first revolver was an H&R 999 Sportsman.... their top of the line 22 revolver. The gun was crap. After shooting it for a number of years and not knowing any better, I got a Colt Diamondback to replace it. I never seriously looked at any revolver made by anyone other than Colt or Smith & Wesson after that point until the GP-100 came out. I feel sure I would like a Ruger Security Six at this point. The GP-100 is a very good revolver. Don't dismiss it as inferior to the Security Six.

Used gun prices reflect what people are willing to pay for them. Why would anyone spend $3000 on a Colt Python?

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Why would anyone spend $3000 on a Colt Python?

In large part, because of the name. (Why do mechanics pay top dollar for Snap-On tools, when other brands are comparable and cheaper?)

I like Colt. I like the Colt name and the history associated with it. I really hope the new Cobra is successful. But I'm not spending multiple thousands on a gun.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Actually, I figured it out. It's me. I'm the problem.

I just drove buy a lemon lot that had an old Ford Fairlane, unrestored, with an asking price of $12,000. I immediately burst into laughter.

I guess I just don't like high prices on anything. I guess I undervalue everything.

 

[22-rimfire]

....I guess I just don't like high prices on anything. I guess I undervalue everything.

I really like Colt Diamondbacks. They are actually my favorite revolver model. Prices climbed steadily after about 2005, especially on certain configurations. I have a number of them, but they have gotten beyond my willingness (in terms of price) to buy one at this point. I don't know if they are worth the cost even though prices have come down somewhat in the last year or so. I guess we often value something we want to buy lower than what we'd like to sell something we already own.

I like knives a fair amount and feel much the same way about Sebenza knives priced in the $350 > $500 area. I keep looking and I will probably eventually buy one even though I just don't see the value of them as well of some of the other mid-techs that are in the same price range. I am not looking for collector knives. But in the case of Colt revolvers, if you buy them, you are pretty much competing with collectors for the same guns.

With things like revolvers, you always need to compare the price of a nice condition used gun relative to currently built guns of similar quality to provide your value benchmark.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

With things like revolvers, you always need to compare the price of a nice condition used gun relative to currently built guns of similar quality to provide your value benchmark.

I totally agree, and that is what prompted my original post. But others argue, with some validity, that the value is "whatever the market will bear," in other words, what someone will pay. Obviously, I disagree. And I won't pay.

 

[9mmepiphany]

But others argue, with some validity, that the value is "whatever the market will bear," in other words, what someone will pay.

This has always been the benchmark of value. What a seller thinks something is worth has no bearing on value, only what a buyer is willing to pay. What many folks forget is that this value point floats, that is a foundation of the free market system.

If you are unwilling to pay the going price, but others are, that means that you are undervaluing the item. I wouldn't pay $2500+ for a Colt Python, but I didn't have any problem selling a couple of mine when the offers got to that level

 

[D.B. Cooper]

This has always been the benchmark of value. What a seller thinks something is worth has no bearing on value, only what a buyer is willing to pay. What many folks forget is that this value point floats, that is a foundation of the free market system.

If you are unwilling to pay the going price, but others are, that means that you are undervaluing the item. I wouldn't pay $2500+ for a Colt Python, but I didn't have any problem selling a couple of mine when the offers got to that level

The foundation of the free market system is supply and demand. High demand drives up prices, I agree, but there is also an equilibrium point. When prices get too high, people are supposed to stop paying, demand falls, and with it, prices and the equilibrium point.

I submit that in the cases of both the Security Six and the Colt snake guns, people are continuing to pay far past where the equilibrium point should be, such that the market system has failed.

 

[9mmepiphany]

You might have a different understanding of the term.

The EP is where Supply and Demand intersect...supply and demand are equal and the price is stable.

You can't say that people are paying pass where the equilibrium point should be and the system has failed, because you don't set that point...the market does. As long as people demand more of a fixed supply, the price should correctly continue to raise until it is high enough to suppress demand. That price point is, by definition, the equilibrium point.

I'm sure the Python will eventually reach a point where most folks won't pay the asking price...there are always some who will...but I don't think we're even close to that point yet. My guess is that it will top $5k but not much beyond $7k. I doubt the Security/Service/Speed-Six will top $800

 

[MedWheeler]

D.B. Cooper writes:

Opening bid on the stainless is $525. That's exactly what I'm talking about. In my view, that's a $400 gun. (But I'm obviously mistaken.)

It's not just you, I guess. The auction ended with no bids.

 

[22-rimfire]

I ran into this equilibrium point concept during the post Sandy Hook gun and ammo shortage. Prices jumped and supply diminished or is it the other way around? Anyway, I just decided that I was unwilling to pay the price and I lived with that. In hind sight, it was probably a good thing as prices were higher than I was willing to pay and I didn't need any firearms anyway in the first place. It was a want thing. Here it is years later and now we're talking about declines in the market prices due to demand as a direct result of the November presidential election. Has some merit as gun buyers and pro 2A advocates have relaxed a bit.