Ruger Security Six question

[Chill Wills]

If the Ruger Security Six was in production and basically a good revolver, why did Ruger end production? It is a strong machine. I hear, though strong, it is not the double action revolver S&W can make, could make.

The GP-100 had to have lots of cost to bring it to market, R&D, set-up the production line and work the bugs out.

I wonder if Ruger's newer DA revolver production has exceeded all the old Security Six revolvers made and was it a smart choice?

BTW- I am contemplating getting a Ruger Security Six for my 21 year old son who wants a handgun for camping and fishing next summer. It will be his first handgun of his own. He has been shooting mine since he was big enough to hold one. My ROA, camping was a big fun deal for him. He is 6' 3" now but here is a picture of him getting the feel of a friends repeater.

[Nobade]

The story I had heard were the Security Six frames would eventually crack after huge numbers of full power magnum loads so they redesigned it and beefed it up with the GP-100. I also liked them a lot better than the later revolver, much lighter and easier to handle.

[rkrcpa]

I've never heard of the Six series having any kind of problems. My understanding is that the Six series revolvers were expensive to manufacture. In fact, Bill Ruger was quoted as saying he never made money on the Security Six.

[pworley1]

My Security Six has been shooting both 357 and 38 special without any issues for nearly 50 years. I like it better than my S&W's.

[Slugster]

I believe the Security Six was a victim of the spawning of the 'Age of the Wondernine'.

[Ed_Shot]

My Security Six has been shooting both 357 and 38 special without any issues for nearly 50 years. I like it better than my S&W's.

Same here. I like it better than the GP100 too.

[G W Wade]

Another fan of the Security 6 GW

[rintinglen]

The tale I heard was that Bill Ruger thought the GP-100 sales would suffer if they continued production of both guns. The GP-100 was perceived to be a better answer to the S&W L-frame revolvers gaining popularity at the time, but revolvers in general were losing popularity as the 9 mm revolution hit town. In 1976, I can only recall two high-cap 9mm service pistols on the market--the Browning HP and the S&W 59. 10 years later there were at least a dozen on the market. Every Glock, Beretta, S&W or other model sold to Law Enforcement not only shrank the potential Market, but resulted in a flood of low cost police trade-ins, mainly S&W, but also Colt and Ruger revolvers as well. Bill Ruger thought that having two similar revolvers for sale in a shrinking market would only result in them "eating each others young" and instead directed that the blocky, but reliable 85 series semi-autos be given the green light and rushed to market.

In retrospect, I think he was probably right, though at the time I thought the Security Six was the better choice. That is reflected in the fact that I have 3 Sixes, but only one GP 100. I carry a Speed Six on occasion.

[charlie b]

I am another fan of the Six. Instead of the GP100 I went to the SP101 3" (sadly sold). They also have the 4.2" barrel with nice sights on it.

[contender1]

I've never heard of the Six series having any kind of problems. My understanding is that the Six series revolvers were expensive to manufacture. In fact, Bill Ruger was quoted as saying he never made money on the Security Six.

^^^THIS^^^ (sorta)

History lesson.
Bill built the SS to compete with S&W for the LEO business. But his design,, while about as good as it can be,, cost more to make,, to where he couldn't get the price point down to sell to LEO's "low bidder" attitudes. The SS is a stronger & better gun than the S&W M-19,, but had (2) drawbacks. It's expense,, and the "feel" of the action.
Then,, as some departments started looking at & going to semi-auto's,, it didn't help LEO sales for neither company.
The GP was a design,, that allowed production expenses to be reduced (over the SS,) AND was still stronger than the K-frames. And it also addressed the competing L framed S&W's.

During the years of the SS line,, (Security-Six, Service-Six, and Speed-Six) from 1970 until 1988,, there were approximately 1.6 million guns built.

Now,, over that 18 years of production,, they finally did reach a point that they made money & weren't losing money. BUT<, since Ruger was a publicly traded company,, the profit margin wasn't where they wanted it. So,, the design team developed the SP & GP line. Both of which enjoy the same basic design, and later on the Super Redhawk. All 3 are still in production,, and combined,, they have well exceeded the 1.6 million SS line in production. I don't have current up to date production numbers for the GP line but it's well past 1 million by itself.

The design of the Security-Six hasn't ever suffered "cracked frames" or other such anomalies that have plagued a few of the S&W line. The S&W M-19 was a fine carry gun,, shoots just fine,, and has a sweet action. But a steady diet of full power magnum loads did create more than a few issues for S&W. Hence the intro of the L-framed guns. Many well known & respected gun writers discussed the necessity of "maintenance" & inspections of S&W K-framed gun that were subjected to large amounts of full power loads.
No doubt,, the S&W action is a totally different design,, and as such,, very, very good in those older guns. But the Rugers are built like a tank,, and outlive most shooters.

So,, back to a bit of the OP's questions. Yes,, the GP line has exceeded production of the SS line. Yes,, it cost a bit to design the GP,, but not as bad as you may think. Plus the expense of that has been recovered by the long term production.

And yes,, the Security-Six is a great choice for such a gift as you have planned. The SS is still regarded as one of the best available by many shooters.

[scattershot]

I have had three of them, but sadly two are gone. Wish I had them back. The one I have left is a 200th year 6”, and it’s a fine pistol. No complaints at all.

[georgerkahn]

I bought a 2 3/4" stainless .357 Security Six quite a few years back, and it still remains one of my most favourite handguns! Its balance is, to me, awesome, and --again for me -- pretty much the only short-barreled handgun I can consistently hit target with. On a fishing trip maybe 40 years back, a buddy spied a Styrofoam cup in the fork of a distant tree, voicing, "twenty bucks says you can't hit it from here." Much to my surprise (and $$$ profit) -- the cup did not tumble, but the hole from my shot clearly went dead-center through it! It was my EDC "forever", until maybe three years ago when I "replaced it" with a Ruger SP101.
I'd not hesitate a milli-second in getting one of these for your son! Imho, one of the greatest revolvers ever made!
gep

[country gent]

I prefer the lines and feel of the security six over the gp 100s. I have a 4" blued model here that was the wifes. I believe the gp 100 was a more "modular" design making manufacture easier.

[georgerkahn]

I prefer the lines and feel of the security six over the gp 100s. I have a 4" blued model here that was the wifes. I believe the gp 100 was a more "modular" design making manufacture easier.

One "feature" I generally dislike re Ruger revolvers is, to me, the handle it toooooo short. I do not have large mitts, but for me on most I get my thumb on left side of grip, and all of middle plus part of ring finger as all I can on the right -- with pinky finger below. For me, not a lot of support for, say, a full-house .357 Magnum load! On the other hand, the grip which comes on the Security Six is, indeed, marvelously long enough to provide a great shooter grip. Another of its great features is the design of grip/trigger guard is such that for me I never get my knuckle beat up from firing!
geo

[rintinglen]

My understanding is that the Six series revolvers were expensive to manufacture. In fact, Bill Ruger was quoted as saying he never made money on the Security Six.

I have read the same thing, but regard it as hoeey. The S&W revolvers had forged frames; the Rugers were investment cast. Investment casting results in a piece requiring significantly less finishing machine work.

Now at first, back in the early 70's, Ruger marketed the Security 6 at roughly 10% under the competing S&W's. But look at a model 19 from that era and compare the finish to that of a similar Ruger. Quite simply, the polish on the Smith was at least twice as costly as the brushed finish on the Ruger. By the later part of the 70's, Ruger prices were pretty close to those of S&W, and their guns were less costly to make. Ruger made money, especially once the cost of the dies and tooling were amortized over a few hundred thousand guns.

[Electrod47]

My Security Six has been shooting both 357 and 38 special without any issues for nearly 50 years. I like it better than my S&W's.

Ditto.....

[Jtarm]

I've never heard of the Six series having any kind of problems. My understanding is that the Six series revolvers were expensive to manufacture. In fact, Bill Ruger was quoted as saying he never made money on the Security Six.

^^^^this^^^^

[d4xycrq]

I remember when the GP100s came out….and remember thinking “…this is an answer to a question no one asked…”. That said, they sold lots of them! I already had a Colt Trooper MkIII, so never had a Six or GP100.

[Bigslug]

The GP-100 at least has the advantage of current support. I can't speak to the older "Six" line of guns, but the GP's, SP's, and Redhawks are solid tanks that I've never found serious flies on. They need a little wear-in with some extra lube in the innards, but once done, they're about as smooth as anything.

[Chill Wills]

Wow! There were some really well written post that provided a lot of information. Thanks for answering the questions I had.