That's preference, which is fine, it's not "better".
Yep, it's based on what you want to do. To those with a preference for hiking and camping, yes, the Security-Six is actually better because of the weight. Can someone prefer a heavier magnum on the trail? Yes, sure, but I can't think of many. Carrying in the wilderness, most people, I think, would strongly prefer a Security-Six. And if people do range shooting and competition, the GP-100 would be better.
I personally would like to see Ruger bring out four and six-inch GPs without the full barrel lug again, which would reduce the weight some (the reason I had my four-incher de-lugged), but you know what? Ruger dropped 'em because they weren't selling as well as the full-lugged versions.
I think, like fashion, people are programmed what to want. But it also wears off after awhile. I'm delighted you had your 4-inch GP "de-lugged" as it bears out what I'm saying. People should have a choice. Just the number of people here illustrates my point.
In other words, regardless of the relatively few people here (and gun forum participants are NOT always representative indicators of the market at large) who'd like a lighter revolver, it was the MARKET that dictated the current versions of the GP.
As revolvers become more of a specialized gun, these forums become more relevant. Just give people a choice. There are a number of us out there who don't want the weight or balance of a gun with an underlug. Remember, in every GP-100 there's a Security-Six struggling to break free.
The deficiencies of the Smith K-Frames with continuing Magnum use were noted, which generated the L-Frame. Even the SS, much superior to the K-Frame, wasn't totally immune from the combined effects of greater Magnum ammunition use and the hotter 125s.
Skeeter Skelton wrote that he knew of three Security-Sixes, each of which had fired in excess of 30,000 hot magnum rounds. One was spitting a little, he wrote, but it was still serviceable.
Yes, some Security-Sixes had problems, but so, too, have the GP-100s and maybe even the 686. As I've said elsewhere, heat treat has a lot to do with how well a gun holds up. S&W, with its forged steel, has had problems when its heat treat wasn't up to snuff. And Ruger's had problems with its investment casting when it's heat treat wasn't up to snuff. I think I told you that I dry fired a Virginia Dragoon once at a range and the hammer broke like glass!
At the time Smith changed its configuration, there was only one reason they went with the underlug barrel and that's because the Python had one. And the thing that caused Ruger to change was that S&W changed, and it worked out for them. Everyone likes a new, stronger gun, even if the previous gun was plenty strong.
The GP was the solution Ruger saw to the profitability issue and the durability issue.
I never saw any indications that Ruger was having a durability issue. Many SS users here haven't had a durability issue, either. Lightweight bullets tend to be hard on any gun, whether it's a GP or a SS. The SS had no frame stretching problems, and I'm not aware of any cracked cylinder problems...only cracked forcing cones, and they were rare.
I've said before that I don't particularly like the full lugs on the GPs, but apparently the majority of the market does.
How would anyone know if there's no choice? You go into a store and you see a 686 and a GP-100. It's like the old saying about the Ford. You could get them in any color as long as they were black. If you concluded that "apparently the majority of the market" liked the black color, how could anyone prove otherwise? The answer is obvious. Not everyone can afford to have one their guns de-lugged. (BTW, I'd love to see a photo of yours if you have any digital ones at hand.)
You may have noted forum discussions on the new .22 LR SP101 about the lack of a lug. There were, on several forums, those who thought the lugless design lookd odd & would have preferred a full lug and a heavier barrel. The new .357 SP101 has the full lug because Ruger's market research found a clear preference for it. Along with the additional weight.
I would have liked to see both versions and heft them. I thought the old S&W 63 was a little too light and could have used a lug. That front sight tended to wobble a bit, unlike my Model 17.
I bought the .22 SP partially because it had no lug. Lighter & better cosmetics, for me. I've lobbied with Ruger over turning out the new .357 SP WITHOUT a lug. They're selling what the customer base wants, overall.
The SP-101 3-inch has a very nice underlug. It's only one ounce heavier than the 2-incher! Not all underlugs are bad.
Discussions still go on along the lines of "Why should I get a five-shot SP when I can have a six-shot GP?"
If they could have a third choice, they might go for that. Alas, many people think they want an underlug, and frankly many of them are shooters at ranges. As more land is zoned out for outdoor shooting, more people shoot indoors, where underlugs retard recoil. With all the people seeing underlugs (even on Taurus revolvers), many think revolvers without them look odd. Me, I don't. One thing I liked about my S&W 60 .38 was its skinny little barrel. It had an "old" look that appealed to me.
When the answer is "Because the SP is 10 ounces lighter!", it frequently falls on deaf ears. Or deaf keyboards.
Point there is that three or four ounces may make a difference between the SS & the GP to you, but weight isn't necessarily a factor for everybody.
It's not just weight, it's balance. The GP-100 shaves some steel off the handle/grip and put it under the barrel. The first time I picked up a friend's GP-100, I pointed it and frowned. I told him it would probably retard recoil, but I didn't like how it dipped forward. It was a constant battle on keeping the barrel up and level. I've gone into a number of gun stores on occasion to see if I couldn't change my mind and I never did.
And- Ruger will NOT be bringing the SS back.
Well, maybe not, but I still haven't thrown my Confederate money away, either.
.
