While I freely admit to being a Ruger guy, I don't know much of the mechanical history. So educate me: what led to the development of the gp100 over the security six? Thanks, all.
history lesson
- Thread starter eastwood44mag
- Start date
- Status
Archie
Member
I'm of the opinion the only way to determine the actual reason for the change is to either conjure up the spirit of Bill Ruger, or have a reliable seer read the entrails of an owl.
Ruger's "Six" (Security, Service, Speed) series was one of the most popular and useful runs of revolvers ever made. (I carried one as a Border Patrol Agent in the '70s.) They were stronger than the "K" frame S&W (which I also had/have and dearly love), probably as strong as the Colt Trooper or Python, had a really good double action function and have outstanding service life. (They seemingly never wore out in use, small parts didn't break and they didn't go out of time.)
I've heard Ruger introduced the GP100 to compete with S&W's L frames. That makes a little sense, but the Sixes were already strong enough to compete, and S&W kept making the K frames (for a while at least).
I've never understood the decision to discontinue the Six series. While I am a snob and prefer the S&W revolvers, the Ruger Six revolvers were better revolvers on a dollar per dollar basis.
Ruger's "Six" (Security, Service, Speed) series was one of the most popular and useful runs of revolvers ever made. (I carried one as a Border Patrol Agent in the '70s.) They were stronger than the "K" frame S&W (which I also had/have and dearly love), probably as strong as the Colt Trooper or Python, had a really good double action function and have outstanding service life. (They seemingly never wore out in use, small parts didn't break and they didn't go out of time.)
I've heard Ruger introduced the GP100 to compete with S&W's L frames. That makes a little sense, but the Sixes were already strong enough to compete, and S&W kept making the K frames (for a while at least).
I've never understood the decision to discontinue the Six series. While I am a snob and prefer the S&W revolvers, the Ruger Six revolvers were better revolvers on a dollar per dollar basis.
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,320
Put me down on the list as another Six series willfan who never cared for the GP100. Tried one and just didn't like it, especially compared to the Security Six. I thought the GP100 was supposed to be Ruger's answer to the S&W L frame while the Six series should havecontinued to compete with the K frames. Didn't expect and never have liked the fact that the GP100 completely replaced the Six series in Ruger's DA revolver line-up.
I seem to recall reading that the change was due to problems in the crane and crane lock system of the "Six" revolvers. I am not sure the exact reason, as the new system seems a lot more complicated and not really any better.
Jim
Jim
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
First duty revolver was a sevice six, still have it. Still runs great. If one can believe internet chatter the six was dumped due to high prduction costs.
CajunBass
Member
Bill Ruger said he lost money on every "six" series revolver he sold. Rather that was literally true or not is a moot point. They didn't make as much off them as they wanted to apparently. So they felt a redesign was needed. The GP is still going strong, so I guess they make money off them. Not from me. I've never cared for them.
Now, personally, I've always felt the REAL reason for both the GP-100, and the Smith & Wesson "L" frame was to have something that looked like a Colt Python. Both were about the same size as a Python, and both had full length underlug barrels.
At the time, both Smith & Wesson and Ruger were seeing their guns modified by installing Python barrels (Smolt's and Cougars). Maybe those people were onto something. And I think "back in the day" there was a perception that the Python was the "best" 357 on the market, at least by the casual buyer, who much as we don't like to admit it, probably make up most of the buying public.
I never cared for the "L" frame Smith & Wesson's either.
That's my story. I got no facts to back it up. Just what I thought at the time and still do.
Now, personally, I've always felt the REAL reason for both the GP-100, and the Smith & Wesson "L" frame was to have something that looked like a Colt Python. Both were about the same size as a Python, and both had full length underlug barrels.
At the time, both Smith & Wesson and Ruger were seeing their guns modified by installing Python barrels (Smolt's and Cougars). Maybe those people were onto something. And I think "back in the day" there was a perception that the Python was the "best" 357 on the market, at least by the casual buyer, who much as we don't like to admit it, probably make up most of the buying public.
I never cared for the "L" frame Smith & Wesson's either.
That's my story. I got no facts to back it up. Just what I thought at the time and still do.
I am fond of the Security Six and the Service Six. I shoot .38 Spl in them both. I like the K frame S&W revolvers a lot, and have 'several'.
My favorite wheel gun (drum roll.....), is the Taurus 66 with 6" barrel. The trigger is a close rival to the Python. Believe it or not. WAY accurate, easy to shoot.
I owned one GP100, and shot one box of ammo through it, and sold it right away. Hated it because of the trigger, the hard-to-cock hammer, and the accuracy was not up to par with the Rugers, S&Ws, or Taurus.
The best Ruger I've owned is the 10/22 (although the receiver is soft and the rail mount installation resulted in a stripped screw hole). Second best is the Security Six.
My favorite wheel gun (drum roll.....), is the Taurus 66 with 6" barrel. The trigger is a close rival to the Python. Believe it or not. WAY accurate, easy to shoot.
I owned one GP100, and shot one box of ammo through it, and sold it right away. Hated it because of the trigger, the hard-to-cock hammer, and the accuracy was not up to par with the Rugers, S&Ws, or Taurus.
The best Ruger I've owned is the 10/22 (although the receiver is soft and the rail mount installation resulted in a stripped screw hole). Second best is the Security Six.
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,320
Never heard of any problems with the Six series with the crane assembly but I do recall a story that was making the rounds when the Security Six was first introduced. Can't speak to the authenticity of this but supposedly Bill Ruger had invited a number of gun writers to the factory for a demonstration as to the strength of the new revolver. They installed a solid barrel blank into the frame of a Security Six and proceeded to fire off six proof loads through it (by remote control, of course). Then they removed the barrel blank and installed a regular production barrel and fired another six proof loads. The gun checked out fine with no discernible damage done to the frame.
I don't know if this really happened or if it did, how convinced everyone there felt about this new gun but I certainly was impressed with it's design and quality construction that I soon bought one (several actually over the years, along with a Service Six and a Speed Six).
I don't know if this really happened or if it did, how convinced everyone there felt about this new gun but I certainly was impressed with it's design and quality construction that I soon bought one (several actually over the years, along with a Service Six and a Speed Six).
Panzerschwein
member
You could always do what I did, and get one of the semi-rare half lug fixed sight GP100s w/ 4" barrel:
This is a model KGPF-340 that was made in 2012, one of that last half lug runs done by Ruger for the GP100 series. I bought it NIB last year, it came with the standard factory Hogue black rubber grips which I promptly switched out for old style Lett made wood inser grips that used to come standard on all GP100s. Interestingly, this gun has the old style roll marks on the barrel, with the modern laser engravings on the frame. It seems almost as if Ruger found an old box of half lug barrels gathering dust and decided to make something with them!
This gun is very much like a Security Six, with a little more "ass" behind it. It's been a great gun so far.
This is a model KGPF-340 that was made in 2012, one of that last half lug runs done by Ruger for the GP100 series. I bought it NIB last year, it came with the standard factory Hogue black rubber grips which I promptly switched out for old style Lett made wood inser grips that used to come standard on all GP100s. Interestingly, this gun has the old style roll marks on the barrel, with the modern laser engravings on the frame. It seems almost as if Ruger found an old box of half lug barrels gathering dust and decided to make something with them!
This gun is very much like a Security Six, with a little more "ass" behind it. It's been a great gun so far.
I don't think there is any doubt about the reason for the L frame as a replacement for the K frame for .357. A simple look at the rear of the barrel of a Model 19 will show the potential problem, though it took very hot light bullet ammo to bring it from a potential problem to a real one.
Jim
Jim
I've had at least one Ruger 6 around since 1975. My first was a blued Service 6 with a 2 3/4" 150 series with what I call the plow handle grip. They changed the grip shortly after they started the 151 series.
I can assure you there were never any strength issues with these guns I ever heard of or experienced.
I helped test those 6 series that were ultimately adopted by the Border Patrol. The specs went out and the only manufacturers bidding were S&W with the Model 66 and Ruger with the 6 series. Each manufacturer supplied 6 guns IIRC. S&W was the low bidder so they were tested first. The tests required the guns to go 10,000 rds of full magnums with, IIRC, no more than 2 or 3 of a list of a dozen or so permissible malfunctions. These malfunctions were minor ones that could be dealt with in the field and not tie the gun up. These included things like sight screws loosening, extractor rod loosening, etc.
These guns were pretty much abused and fired like they never would be in the field. We fired these guns as fast as we could shoot 6 and reload. After the first 100 rds or so of full magnums you'd quit trying to aim and just be sure you were shooting into the backstop. We wound up padding our hands to deal with the recoil and wearing gloves to protect our hands from the heat when reloading. They were cleaned every 500 rds and we're so hot they would have to be splashed with a liberal amount of Hoppes to cool down the entire gun. This was a quick clean and not an inspection clean. Then the 500 rds were done all over again.
The results were poor for the S&Ws. One revolver blew half of its cylinder to pieces in 400 rds. The longest a S&W lasted was 1500 rds and it was badly out of time.
The Rugers went next. All had no problem shooting the 10,000 rds with zero malfunctions. It was decided to see how far they would go. The first Ruger went out with 13 or 14,000 rds with timing problems. The rest went to 20,000 rds with no issues. The evaluation staff wanted to keep going but the bean counters had already bought over 100,000 rds of factory 357 and cut us off at that.
I've also heard that every 6 series sold cost Ruger money. The 6s were definitely stronger than a k frame and probably a L frame IMO.
I can assure you there were never any strength issues with these guns I ever heard of or experienced.
I helped test those 6 series that were ultimately adopted by the Border Patrol. The specs went out and the only manufacturers bidding were S&W with the Model 66 and Ruger with the 6 series. Each manufacturer supplied 6 guns IIRC. S&W was the low bidder so they were tested first. The tests required the guns to go 10,000 rds of full magnums with, IIRC, no more than 2 or 3 of a list of a dozen or so permissible malfunctions. These malfunctions were minor ones that could be dealt with in the field and not tie the gun up. These included things like sight screws loosening, extractor rod loosening, etc.
These guns were pretty much abused and fired like they never would be in the field. We fired these guns as fast as we could shoot 6 and reload. After the first 100 rds or so of full magnums you'd quit trying to aim and just be sure you were shooting into the backstop. We wound up padding our hands to deal with the recoil and wearing gloves to protect our hands from the heat when reloading. They were cleaned every 500 rds and we're so hot they would have to be splashed with a liberal amount of Hoppes to cool down the entire gun. This was a quick clean and not an inspection clean. Then the 500 rds were done all over again.
The results were poor for the S&Ws. One revolver blew half of its cylinder to pieces in 400 rds. The longest a S&W lasted was 1500 rds and it was badly out of time.
The Rugers went next. All had no problem shooting the 10,000 rds with zero malfunctions. It was decided to see how far they would go. The first Ruger went out with 13 or 14,000 rds with timing problems. The rest went to 20,000 rds with no issues. The evaluation staff wanted to keep going but the bean counters had already bought over 100,000 rds of factory 357 and cut us off at that.
I've also heard that every 6 series sold cost Ruger money. The 6s were definitely stronger than a k frame and probably a L frame IMO.
I was very much into revolvers when Ruger introduced the GP-100...right around the same time that S&W introduced the L-frame.
The reason put out to the gunzines was that LE departments had gone ot qualifying with full-power .357Mag ammo (the 125gr JHP was very popular) and the K-frame was getting beat to pieces. Ruger took the opportunity to drop the Six series and introduce the GP-100 which was optimized for modern production methods, Bill Ruger stated in an article, a bit later, that he was unsure if they ever made money on the Six series.
The touted advances incorporated into the GP-100, besides the larger frame/cylinder (Colt I-frame speedloaders could be used with it) were:
1. Off-set ejector rod to allow more metal around the barrel shank
2. Lockup of the crane/frame moved to the front of the cylinder...following the lead of Dan Wesson revolvers
3. Reduced grip frame to allow more variance in grip shape...again copying DW
4. One piece rubber grips for increased comfort (the wood inserts were decorative)
The reason put out to the gunzines was that LE departments had gone ot qualifying with full-power .357Mag ammo (the 125gr JHP was very popular) and the K-frame was getting beat to pieces. Ruger took the opportunity to drop the Six series and introduce the GP-100 which was optimized for modern production methods, Bill Ruger stated in an article, a bit later, that he was unsure if they ever made money on the Six series.
The touted advances incorporated into the GP-100, besides the larger frame/cylinder (Colt I-frame speedloaders could be used with it) were:
1. Off-set ejector rod to allow more metal around the barrel shank
2. Lockup of the crane/frame moved to the front of the cylinder...following the lead of Dan Wesson revolvers
3. Reduced grip frame to allow more variance in grip shape...again copying DW
4. One piece rubber grips for increased comfort (the wood inserts were decorative)
The method of attaching the grip to the frame, the use of a one piece frame (harder to machine but that cost is offset by the huge state of the art casting operations at Ruger). That one piece frame is very similar to a Charter frame but much heavier thickness and mass. Don't believe anyone who tells you that a Ruger will take anything you can stuff into it - they can be abused by heavy loads just like a S&W revolver. I have done it and so have many others. High velocity light bullet flame thrower loads WILL erode the forcing cone away. The Kuhnhausen Ruger DA shop manual has many photos of damaged GPs from those hot loads. While it is definitely hard to blow one up - if you hit it with enough hot gas long enough - the forcing cone will erode away. Use 140 gr. or heavier and the problem goes away. They are very good revolvers for the money IMO. The feel of the trigger is quite different from a S&W but can be tuned by someone who knows what they're doing.
Last edited:
Panzerschwein
member
Did anyone notice my half-lug fixed sight GP100 with 4" (not 4.2") barrel?
If you want a "moderns service six", this is your Huckleberry.
Ruger no longer services the Six series guns, and that's one reason why I like the GP100s guns better.
If you want a "moderns service six", this is your Huckleberry.
Ruger no longer services the Six series guns, and that's one reason why I like the GP100s guns better.
entropy
Member
As with most Ruger guns, They overbuilt an already overbuilt gun. I had a Redhawk, (regular 7.5", not Super) that I shot with rounds I wouldn't even think of firing in a Model 29 or Anaconda. I developed a Moose hunting load with 300 gr. XTP's @ 1300 fps. My Dad refused to even try them in his 629. He had some rounds left over for his Ruger .44 Auto Carbine after he sold it, and I fired them up; I had to shave the lead off the front of the bullet to get them to fit the length of the cylinder, but it took 'em without protest or signs of distress.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked