The Security-Six.S&W 19/66: Did Progress Kill Them?

[Confederate]

While reading one of the many threads lamenting the demise of the venerable Ruger Security-Six, I began thinking how much of a shame it was that such a fine gun passed into obscurity, and also wondered how much of it was due to ignorance.

In other words, it's not that the GP-100 was made to be stronger than the Security-Six, as some have suggested (though it may be stronger from sheer size, lockup and weight). Rather, it was designed to follow in the footsteps of the 686.

Back in the early 80s when word was going around that the 66s weren't holding up to full throttle light-bullet loads, some people just assumed (even some gun writers) that the Security-Six, being about the same weight and size as the 66, suffered from the same malady. I think someone at Ruger panicked and felt like they had to follow suit. In S&W's case, the gun was clearly better, stronger, more accurate. The GP-100, though, only resulted in more bulk and weight.

Now please don't get me wrong. I love every .357 Ruger and Smith ever made, but there was a reason Bill Jordan wanted a lighter magnum for law enforcement. Hunters and outdoorsmen also liked the 4- and 6-inch Security-Sixes as hunting pistols and as backups. Campers liked the smaller, lighter guns for packing into the wilderness. The full underlug barrels were fine for shooting on the range or for places where they didn't have to be hauled, but they dumped all the benefits of a lighter, powerful gun.

While perusing this subject, I ran across an article in Guns Magazine where gun writer John Tafin noted: "For Bill Jordan the .357 Combat Magnum, introduced in 1955, was the Peace Officer's Dream Sixgun. Its smaller diameter cylinder, lighter weight, and smaller grip frame made it much easier to pack in relative comfort all day and also easier for smaller hands to handle. It not only was an excellent revolver for law-enforcement use, it soon gained a large following among outdoor types who needed a powerful and easily packable pistol."

Amen to that! He added:

Bill Jordan envisioned the Combat Magnum to be carried with .357 Magnum loads while using the .38 Special loads for practice. Some complained of the Model 19/66 not holding up to continuous use of .357 loads. One of the problem areas was the relatively thin forcing cone while the other complaint, especially with the Model 66, was the cylinder locking due to the gas ring expanding with the heat of rapid-fire loads. The latter was addressed in 1977 with the moving of the gas ring from the yoke to the cylinder, and then in 1980 the Model 19/66 was "upgraded." Gone was the light weight of the Combat Magnum replaced by a heavier and larger cylinder in a new revolver called the Model 586 in blue or nickel and Model 686 in stainless steel. The new L-frame revolvers were larger and heavier than the K-frame Combat Magnums yet maintained the K-frame grip.

Although Tafin didn't say so, keep in mind that the Ruger offered the size and weight advantages while having none of the disadvantages of the Combat Masterpiece. Continuing, he writes:

The advent of the 586/686 revolvers was a good news/bad news proposition. The good news is the fact they are probably the best double action .357 Magnum revolvers ever offered by Smith & Wesson, or anyone else for that matter. The bad news was it would be only a matter of time until the Model 19 was dropped from production and the day of the K-frame .357 Magnum is now over. The 586 is also gone, however the 686 remains. For shooting a lot I prefer the newer L-frame .357 Magnums, however, most revolvers are carried more than shot and the Combat Magnum remains the easiest packing, finest looking, all-steel .357 Magnum S&W ever offered. I intend to keep mine and hopefully they will be used by my grandkids and passed on to their grandkids. Bill Jordan had a great idea. Progress killed it. See full article here.

Tafin failed to note the Security-/Speed-Sixes in his article, but his points are otherwise well taken.

Comments?

Other articles of interest include:

R.I.P. Combat Magnum

The American Classic .357 Snub

 

[Blue Brick]

I love my Police Service Six, I wish they still made them.

 

[Oro]

It wasn't "progress" that killed it - it was:

1) Irresponsible ammo development
2) Ignorance and abuse on the part of users, and
3) the fear of liability lawyers.

As we all know, it was never designed to be used with lightweight bullets, or extensive magnum use. This was no secret to experienced handgunners.

I keep a pair of 66's and a 19 on hand because of their brilliant design. They carry wonderfully, whether 2.5" or 4". If I need to try to break a gun, I have a 686 or N frame 357's for that!

 

[Shear_stress]

The problem with Tafin's article is it implies that the K-frame .357 went away immediately with the advent of the L-frame in 1980. The Model 65 Ladysmith and Model 66 soldiered on until some time in the early 2000s.

 

[JohnBT]

According to a published interview with Mr. Ruger, he doubted that they made a penny on the entire -Six centerfire line if you counted the design and development costs along with the production costs.

IOW, they needed something that was less expensive to make. Ruger was, and is, a business after all.

I also recall reading that for over 50 years Ruger has never borrowed money to expand. They made enough to pour a great deal back into the company and finance their ongoing growth.

John

 

[Confederate]

According to the article by Massad Ayoob, the ammunition limitations was an issue that grew with the popularity of the hot, light loads. He writes: "Jordan himself said the K-frame .357 was designed to be carried much and shot little with .357 ammo, though it proved itself to be a long-lived gun with .38 Special ammo, even in P. Combat Magnums in general and the 66 in particular needed frequent trips to the armorer for re-timing and often split their forcing cones if shot heavily with the 125-grain Mag soon to be law enforcement's standard."

Thus, it wasn't that the Smiths couldn't take magnum rounds of all types, but the hot loads using light bullet weights. As immediately popular as the Combat Masterpiece guns were, the hot, light rounds became more popular.

I don't see any issue regarding "irresponsible" ammo development. The 158gr JHPs just weren't effective in use as manstoppers as the 125gr JHP, and when that was widely publicized, wild horses couldn't keep people away from the more effective rounds. Also, the magnum rounds already had been kicked down in power a few notches from their original loadings (intended for use in N-frame Smiths), so I don't see any irresponsibility in the loadings themselves. Users, however, should have been more respectful of their guns and used the hot magnum loads only for occasional use.

 

[Dienekes]

My agency issued the 3" Speed Six for years. The 110 gr. .357 load was used for a while, and then we went to the 125 gr. load. At the time I was the range officer. We fired the 72 round course of fire with full loads, and usually some additional firing with pepper poppers, etc. as well. I put a lot of those same loads through my guns, which were a 4" Service Six and a 4" Security Six. The guns stood it OK but I got forcing cone erosion and a lot of spitting over time, to where I sent both guns back in to the factory. One had the barrel replaced and the gun refinished for free; the other cost me about $90 for the same work. I still have and use both guns, but shoot fewer 125s and those throttled back to about 90% of full velocity.

Even though the "Sixes" are less elegant than the K frames, I like them and they are just about indestructible. Never owned an L frame but do have a 66 which is primarily for fun with .38 Spl. loads. Have a wonderfully smooth GP-100 that is both deadly accurate with .357s while being a creampuff to shoot--but it's BIG. I think both Ruger and S&W developed those bigger frame guns for a police market that evaporated with the stampede to semiautos in the mid to late 80s. I never felt the need for more "firepower" and carried one or the other of those Rugers right up to the end.

All of those guns were good then and are still good now.

 

[orionengnr]

Well, I own and shoot both an M19 and an M66.
The 66 is marked as an SD Sheriff's Department gun; I paid $300 for it about five years ago, It has been well-used but seems to have been well taken care of. I shoot it a good bit but try to use 158s at the range (although I've put a fair amount of 125s through it). I also carry it somewhat regularly.

My 19 is in much nicer shape and I shoot it occasionally.

I think that for a .357, the K-frame is perfect. FWIW, I also owned a 4" 586 until about two months ago. Sold it because my K-frames are better balanced.

Oh yeah, I also own a M-27, and while I love it, I don't carry it. If I'm going to carry an N-frame (as I am doing while I type this) it will be either a .41 Mag or a .45LC.

No, progress did not kill the K-frame. Administrative/Political idiocy did, in a mad rush toward high-cap 9mms and then 40 cals. Poor training now allows officers to empty their high-caps, re-load and empty the gun again, all the while often hitting...nothing. These days we have five officers emptying 60-100 rounds in order to make 5 hits. On a suspect who may be innocent.

 

[Oro]

I don't see any issue regarding "irresponsible" ammo development.

There's a big difference from the Super-Vel rounds of the '70s that caused the problems, and the hot, light loads used safely today. My comment does not refer to the whole spectrum of 110 or 125gr loads as you have interpreted it. I should have qualified it more to be clear, in fairness.

 

[Confederate]

The guns stood it OK but I got forcing cone erosion and a lot of spitting over time, to where I sent both guns back in to the factory.

Were your guns blue or stainless? I ask this because the stainless guns hold up to these loads a bit better. Hot loads with light bullets tend to leech out the carbon from the steel, and stainless' chromium content tends to resist a bit better. But I've seen even stainless forcing cones cracked by the relentless firing of hot 110gr JHP rounds, so even they're not immune.

 

[18DAI]

My Security Six and model 66-2 still tick along accurately and reliably.

I can't understand why either was discontinued. TJ

 

[MachIVshooter]

Were your guns blue or stainless? I ask this because the stainless guns hold up to these loads a bit better.

My stainless security six 4" has a cracked forcing cone. When it cracked, it bound up the cylinder completely. I had to tap it open with a mallet and file the bottom of the cone to get it back into operation. It's been psuedo-retired. It lives with my folks, stoked with .38 +P loads. I also seldom shoot my model 65 and recently traded off a model 19-4 P&R.

While I agree that the -six series and K-frames pack easier, i'd rather carry my 586 or 686 because I know they can take the really nastly loads. Having that forcing cone crack cause a gun to lock up has made me skeptical of trusting the lighter guns to run full loads at all.

All that said, my hunting/backpacking sidearm is a S&W 1006 anyway.

 

[DWFan]

You're right, Oro. Until recently "rediscovered" by the likes of Buffalo Bore, Double Tap and CorBon, the full-throttle .357 Magnum loads that triggered all the controversy hadn't been produced in years. I have read articles warning that Python owners should shoot Specials in their revolvers and save the Magnums for "when needed" to reduce timing issues so it wasn't just S&W's and Rugers.
It is ironic that as soon as manufacturers redesigned their .357's to be able to handle the full-throttle loads, that ammo (specifically the 1700+ fps 125gr) was taken off the market and replaced with lower-powered pretenders to the name "Magnum" that operates at 1450 fps.

 

[Blue Brick]

My stainless security six 4" has a cracked forcing cone.

Any Pictures?

 

[gmh1013]

I miss my model 19 ...should have never sold....dumb

 

[atlanticfire]

My Security six is very much alive and well. Heck, I was even feeding it a good health dose of full house rounds this weekend! (as I do many) I have yet to find a 357 of its equal! I've posted a pic of it like 3 times this past week already but here it is again!

 

[MachIVshooter]

Any Pictures?

None on hand, and the gun is 20 miles north. That's 4.5 gallons of fuel to snap a shot.

It cracked on the bottom, causing it to push against the rod.

 

[roaddog28]

I love my Police Service Six, I wish they still made them.

Well I still have my Police Service Six 4" and I also have a 66-4 4". I love them both because they handle better than my 686-3 4" GP100 4" and 28-2 4". I feel both of these revolvers were discontinued because the lighter high pressure 357 ammo. But I feel also both of these revolvers were better to carry all day by LE officers. Below are my Police Service Six and my 66-4.
Thanks,
roaddog28

 

[slick6]

atlanticfire:

That is a neat heavy barrel version, Security-Six! Does the barrel measure 2.75" or is it the 3"? I've seen both of these barrel lengths in that very same heavy barrel configuration! I have a Speed-Six with that heavy barrel-but, I'm still looking for an Security-Six or a Security-Six with the 3" heavy barrel!

 

[atlanticfire]

Interestingly enough I measured it today. To the frame it was an even 2”. So I would fair to say 2.75”? Although, I didn’t measure .75” from frame to cylinder. Its more like 2.25” . . . . . .? Who knows! All I need to know is that its balls accurate!

 

[jad0110]

Kinda looks like a 2.75" from the pic. The measurement should be taken from the tip of the forcing cone to the tip of the muzzle.

Ruger made six series guns with 2.75" barrels as their shortest, as far as I recall. If it is less than that, it could be a non-factory mod.

 

[revolversrbetter]

so, extrapolating from this thread, it sounds like I should not be concerned with occasionally using DoubleTap 200gn hardcast in my Security Six?

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Psssing? Obscurity? Hah! I picked up one of each not long ago at GB and a gunshow, and am tickled pink! The Ruger was darn near new, the S&W needed a little timing adjustment, but both have great actions, and are very accurate (the Ruger is astounding). They may not be currently produced, but there are enough of them around to have the one you want, in the condition you want, at a price that is easily way less than they sold for last, due to the recessed economy and the flood of semi-autos that lead the market. Make a choice, and go get a nice M19 or Security Six.

 

[MCgunner]

IMHO, the vaunted strength of the Six series, to a degree, is over-rated. I shot one pretty loose over 10 years and less than 10K rounds. Sure, the frame is strong, but the SP101's lock up is considerably stronger IMHO. I prefer the SP101 to the Sixes for more than concealment. I'd never buy another six over an SP101, personally.

The K frames are fantastic, but they're weaker than the Rugers due to the frame's design and the flat on the bottom of the forcing cone. I've had a K frame split at that flat. It's a bit of a problem on 'em, though I think it's rare that it would crack. When it does, though, you're out of action. I also have had a hammer mounted firing pin snap and much prefer the Ruger's transfer bar system That one puts you out of action, too.

All JMHO, but I don't really lament the passing of the Six series. There's enough used ones out there and the koolaid drinkers can have 'em. Personally, I want another SP101, fantastic little carry piece in .357. I love the things with a Hogue grip on 'em, awesome shooters and easier to tote than a 6 shooter IWB.

 

[Steve C]

In other words, it's not that the GP-100 was made to be stronger than the Security-Six, as some have suggested (though it may be stronger from sheer size, lockup and weight). Rather, it was designed to follow in the footsteps of the 686.

The Security Six demise was the result of the switch to lower cost manufacturing using investment cast parts. It is less expensive to machine a cast part that's already close to the proper shape of the final part than to machine the part from a block of steel that requires more material to be removed. Parts are necessarily larger to assure strength of the casting.