Has anyone heard of any problems with the Security-Six forcing cones? The forcing cones of the S&W 19/66s didn't hold up so well because the six o'clock part of the cones were clipped so the cylinder could close. The thing is, I've seen a lot of Security-Sixes with cut-offs in the six o'clock parts on their forcing cones. Yet I've never seen one split! I also just did a search on Bing and Google with "security-six" and "forcing cones," thinking I would see several split or badly worn. And though I saw a number of forcing cones split and worn, they weren't Security-Six cones despite the parameter I stipulated. (Bing is a horrible search engine as despite the "security-six" stipulation, the damn thing just pulls in everything having to do with forcing cones, period. Google is much better.)
The cylinder of one of my Security-Sixes shows how strong Ruger designed it:
And I think the forcing cones on the Rugers are stronger than those on the Smith & Wessons. Not because of the size, but I think the steel is better. It's been long known that the steel on the Model 66-0 guns is better than subsequent models. That's part of the reason they sell for a little bit more. Also the pinned barrels and counterbored chambers. Neither of these really make the gun better, but they do add to the beauty. The steel quality is a definite plus, though.
Ruger forcing cone.
S&W 66 forcing cone.
The Ruger Security-Six was known for digesting hundreds of thousands of hot magnum loads, but the Model 19/66 S&Ws were not known for their longevity, despite the fact they were beefed up on the new GP-100s. If one looks at the Model 66 forcing cone, it actually appears beefier than the Ruger Security-Six's. But the Ruger forcing cones were far more robust. If any of you have shot your Security-Sixes a lot, I'd like to see photos of your forcing cones.