Security-Six v. GP-100

C

Cold Steel

New member
I just finished giving my unfired 4-inch stainless Ruger Security-Six an action job. Now it's smoother than I could have ever made a GP-100.

It was easy. First I changed the mainspring, second, I dry fired it about 700 times (maybe more). And the change is amazing. Ruger always said that one spring is better than two. Not true...not now, not ever. Plus, if one takes the grips off both guns, you can see where Ruger cut its corners. On the newer guns the gun has no grip frame. Seems they took the steel out, added it to the barrel as an underlug and still managed to make it heavier. The Security-Six still functions without grips, but not the GP.

Okay, I'm still a bit ticked that Ruger discontinued its standard barrel version to give us another .357 underlug. Smith had to beef up its medium frame magnums, but Ruger didn't. I understand the 6-series guns weren't pulling in the profits, but that's because the base price was too low. It's one reason that used 6s are, in my view, frequently underpriced. (Another reason is the legal gook on the side...no beauty contest winner. One day in the near future, I'm going to see if I can Photoshop that warning out to see how that changes its appearance.)

I have a Smith 686 and it's an astounding gun, but when I recently hefted a GP-100, I thought the balance was too light in the grip and too heavy in the barrel.

What are your thoughts? Did Ruger screw up a perfectly good gun or did they make a good gun better? How do you think the GP-100 compares with the Security-Six, and how do you think it compares with the 686? When the 686 first launched, S&W determined that by watching its tolerances, its new magnum could rival the vaunted Colt Python in accuracy. And when tested by the leading magazines, the groupings seem to bear out that S&W succeeded.

Whether the company was able to keep up the pace, I don't know. With today's technology, maybe they have. That's why I'm interested in your feedback. Previously, the Security-Six was found to be better with heavier bullets than light ones. Don't know if this was because of the twist rate, but I was told years ago that light bullets were mostly used in defense situations, while heavier bullets were used for hunting and at the range. Don't know if this is true, but my 686 seems to do better with 125gr JHPs. Whether this is because of barrel weight or the way it's manufactured, I don't know.

Thanks for your views!
 
I have a Security Six, and I've done everything I can to get the action as light/smooth as possible (Trapper spring kit, Clark adjustable mainspring strut, lots of internal polishing) and it has a pretty smooth and light action.

Then my Dad bought a GP-100 and got his even lighter and smoother. It must be at around 8 lbs DA.

I'd buy a GP-100 with zero hesitation.

Have you seen the guys who did half-lug conversions on their 686s? Something to think about.

At the gunsmithing shop I worked at we removed the warnings on Rugers at the owners request. My Bisley was cut down from 7.5" to 5.5" and the warning is now MIA.
 
I find the GP100 to be a well balanced weapon, especially in a longer barreled configuration; I actually find "pencil" barreled guns awkward.
 
Slopemeno said:
At the gunsmithing shop I worked at we removed the warnings on Rugers at the owners request.
Click to expand...
Really? How much did you charge for a stainless revolver like a Security-Six?

8mm said:
I find the GP100 to be a well balanced weapon, especially in a longer barreled configuration; I actually find "pencil" barreled guns awkward.
Click to expand...
If you're shooting at a stationary target, the heavier barrels can help you stay on target. But if you're shooting at a fast, moving target, the lighter barrels are much better, especially at a distance. I had a friend who had to shoot and kill a mountain lion that attacked him at his ranch in Utah. He had a Dan Wesson .357 with an underlug barrel and said it was difficult for him to track the animal because of its speed and the heavy weight of his barrel; however, he got off a shot as it got closer. (It turned out to be rabid.) People who hunt and do range shooting do well with heavier barrels. But I prefer the Security-Six and Smith 66 for camping, hiking and self defense. I also love the 4-inch Smith 686.

But my all-time favorite is the 3-inch Speed-Six. And after that I'd be comfortable with an SP-100. I'd like to see Ruger at least put out a GP-100 with a light-weight 3-inch barrel. The Python is the gun that screwed everything up. First, Smith thought it had to jump on the bandwagon, then Ruger.

What made you guys go with the GP-100 over the 686? Was it the money, the lock, MIM parts or a combination?
 
I find the "feel" of what is right in a revolver to not only be quite subjective...
But ever evolving, also.

I love my six-inch 686, but when I shoot, I tend to do 100-150 rounds through each handgun I've got with me on that day. And at 100 or more rounds, a six-inch 686 feels quite muzzle heavy to me.

I recently snagged a six-inch Model 66 on the slightly smaller K-frame. Lately... for me, anyway, the "feel" of shooting a K-frame has pretty much defined "perfect" in my hands. :cool:

Even still, I love 'em all. I have a blast with my six-inch N-frame 28-2, my big 7.5" barreled .44 Magnum Redhawk and my 4.2" barreled GP-100.
 
To understand how and why Ruger transitioned from the Six series to the GP100, you have to understand why Ruger made the Six series to begin with. Ruger never really intended to make a huge profit on the Six series to begin with, instead it was a means for them to break into the police market which, at the time, was dominated by S&W with Colt trailing a distant second. In order to do that, Ruger had to offer a comparable quality product at a significantly lower price. Look at it this way, most police were quite satisfied with their S&W revolvers, so, unless the Ruger brought something different to the table, why would they choose a new and untested revolver over their tried-and-true S&W's?

Now, while it is true that the Six series revolvers were more durable that S&W's in some respects, the notion that S&W's are "fragile" is rather overstated. The majority of problems experienced by S&W users were when .357 Magnum ammunition with lightweight bullets was used in K-Frame revolvers. Relatively few problems were experienced by departments which used .38 Special K-Frames or .357 Magnum L and N-Frames.

Instead, Ruger's main marketing strategy was to offer a product that at least as good as the S&W at a substantially lower cost. By doing this, Ruger was able to break into the police market and establish itself as a viable alternative to the more expensive S&W and Colt products. By the time the Six series was discontinued in 1988, Ruger had achieved this as they had surpassed Colt and followed closely behind S&W in police sales.

Once they had established themselves in the market, however, the Six series was no longer a feasible gun for Ruger to continue to make. In order to be profitable, Ruger would have likely had to increase the price of the Six series to nearly that of a comparable S&W. That would have put Ruger at something of a disadvantage because S&W offered a wider variety of products including shotguns, handcuffs, and small-frame backup/off-duty revolvers making them an attractive option as a "one stop shop" for police departments. Because of this, Ruger had to come up with a gun that could be manufactured at a lower cost in order to increase the profit margin without increasing the selling price.

While we gun people might feel that the Six series was more svelte, balanced better, was more attractive looking, and had a smoother action that the GP100 does, the newer revolver will, by and large, be just as accurate and just as durable. Those two attributes along with cost are going to be what the "bean counters" who are not often gun people are going to care about. The people in charge of purchasing guns in large quantities seldom choose the best gun, but rather the best gun for the money and in that respect the GP100 was/is just as marketable as the Security Six was. Unfortunately for Ruger, the GP100 was introduced right about the time that revolvers began to fall out of favor with police and thus it was probably never able to attain the success that had been envisioned for it.
 
"...What made you guys go with the GP-100 over the 686? Was it the money, the lock, MIM parts or a combination?.."

I was on a K-frame kick when I bought an L-frame 686 4". Unfortunately, it just felt wrong...like a brick...in comparison to my Model 15 38spl. I sold it after a couple range trips.
But my current favorite revolver is my GP100 3". It has a fantastic trigger...as good or better than my well used S&W.
As far as the Security Six, I used to own a late model 4" stainless Security Six, and it was a great revolver I regret trading off a few years ago. But, I like the GP more, and shoot it better than I ever did the Security Six.
 
I have a 2 3/4" Security Six and a 4" GP100. I love both of them. Wonderful balance and ergonomics, plenty stout and after new springs, dry firing and regular use, both have butter-like triggers. Wouldn't part with either.
 
I had a friend who had to shoot and kill a mountain lion that attacked him at his ranch in Utah. He had a Dan Wesson .357 with an underlug barrel and said it was difficult for him to track the animal because of its speed and the heavy weight of his barrel
Click to expand...

Having seen a mountain lion move in the wild once (fortunately from my car), and having watched endless hours of watching big cats move in the wild on animal planet with my kids, I have to say that they seem like they would be extremely hard to hit period.
Personally I don't really notice the weight of the full under-lug, and find that my 4" GP balances just about perfect for me.
Also, I do prefer the aesthetics of the full under-lug - I'm even one of those fools that perpetually hopes Ruger will start putting out a full under-lug version of the Redhawk. Maybe when they bring it back into production, right?

But, I've admittedly only ever used it to hunt paper.

I looked at the 686 before I bought the GP, and found that I preferred the way the GP felt in my hand. The lock is a non-issue for me. Plus, don't newer GP's also have a lock, just hidden under the grip?
The one I wound up buying is from the late 80's, and I have to say it has the smoothest action of any gun I've ever fired.

I do have to say that I like the idea of the "full tag" grip on the SS, but the GP frame does allow for much more diverse grip options - from Lett's to Hogues, to Badger Boot grips - and that can be nice.
Also, you can have a relatively standard size grip without an exposed back-strap, which is nice if you're shooting a lot of heavy loads.

So, while I'd have a hard time saying the GP is objectively "better" than the SS, I'd say it's as good, and does have some features which make it more widely appealing.
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for your comments and for your insightful analysis, Webleymkv. The police market certainly was a pivotal point in Smith & Wesson's decision to beef up its medium frame .357s, but a number of questions remain.

First, Smith could have beefed up its guns without forcing everyone to have an underlug. The new guns could have been offered with both underlug and standard, but they weren't. And it didn't stop police departments from buying and carrying (but not without some complaint) the new guns. There were a number of reasons that the company decided to go with the underlugs: first, they made their guns look like Pythons. They also may have thought that in frantic shooting situations that the heavier barrel would benefit cop by reducing muzzle flip. And as stated earlier, they made a concerted effort to make their 686s as accurate as Pythons, something they reportedly succeeded at, at least for the first few years.

True, Ruger needed to either raise the cost of the "Sixes" or come out with a new version that was both cheaper to produce and could be sold for more, maximizing their profits. But by putting a stub on the backside and so much steel in the front, it threw the entire balance off. And like knives, guns should have a certain point of balance that makes holding them comfortable and ergonomic. The 686, despite its underlug, kept the balance at a very comfortable point. The GP-100 4- and 6-inchers, however, shifted the point of balance and hoped shooters would adjust for it. Ruger, too, could have produced its gun without an underlug. But the only reason I can think of for so doing would be following S&W's lead. With no substantial steel in the aft part of the gun, a slightly heavy barrel would have had a much better balance point. The weight would still shift forward in the hand without it feeling like it was going to jump out of it.

The new gun certainly didn't need to be beefier, nor heavier. Some people need to carry their .357s while hiking, hunting, camping and traveling cross country by car. The whole idea of making the gun the size it was was to reduce weight and size from the N-frame. And the highway patrol of the early 30s considered the .357 to be a near perfect gun, except for size and weight. The round flattened tires, punched through car doors and even through seats to stop bad guys. So had the K-frame actually been able to indefinitely contain the bigger boom, there would have been no need to change anything.

Ruger's design was sheer genius. Make a solid frame with parts that fit down and up into the frame; offset the latch recess so it wasn't directly over the chamber. But I've never figured out why Ruger's forcing cones tended to hold up for hundreds of thousands of rounds while the S&W forcing cones seemed to crack easier. Both looked about the same, with the 66 forcing cone even looking a little bigger than Ruger's. I've heard about a lot of cracked Model 19 forcing cones and substantially fewer 66 cracks. Stainless steel has more chromium, which resists the carbon from being leeched out of it be the hot magnum rounds; still, there were more cracked forcing cones on Smiths overall than Rugers. Is the Ruger barrel investment cast? I would think it would have to be made of forged steel, but I don't know. Smith ran ads early on with the 686, claiming its forged steel frames made their guns more durable. They finally stopped because most gun owners knew better.

Here are two photos showing why the Ruger Sixes are so doggone strong:









And here's a photo of a Ruger Six forcing cone. Fairly typical...they probably should have cracked more, but they didn't.

 
Cold Steel, perhaps I can answer a few of your questions,

First, Smith could have beefed up its guns without forcing everyone to have an underlug. The new guns could have been offered with both underlug and standard, but they weren't. And it didn't stop police departments from buying and carrying (but not without some complaint) the new guns. There were a number of reasons that the company decided to go with the underlugs: first, they made their guns look like Pythons. They also may have thought that in frantic shooting situations that the heavier barrel would benefit cop by reducing muzzle flip. And as stated earlier, they made a concerted effort to make their 686s as accurate as Pythons, something they reportedly succeeded at, at least for the first few years.
Click to expand...

First and foremost you need to bear in mind that S&W has always offered a more extensive line of revolvers than Ruger. The L-Frames were introduced not because S&W didn't have a gun capable of standing up to full-power magnums with lightweight bullets, but because the guns then available didn't fit smaller hands as well as a K-Frame did. The larger N-Frame Model 28 remained in production for six years after the introduction of the L-Frames and the more deluxe Model 27 has been in production on and off up to the present.

Likewise, because the balance of the K-Frames had such a following, S&W did not immediately discontinue them. The Model 19 remained in production until 1999 and the Model 66 until 2005. Also, S&W has recently reintroduced the Model 66 albeit with some design changes such as a two-piece barrel.

Finally, S&W put the full underlug on the L-Frames because there was significant demand for it. S&W has, at various times, offered L-Frames without full-lug barrels such as the models 520, 619, and 620. None of them lasted more than a few years because sales were slow compared to their full-lug counterparts.

True, Ruger needed to either raise the cost of the "Sixes" or come out with a new version that was both cheaper to produce and could be sold for more, maximizing their profits. But by putting a stub on the backside and so much steel in the front, it threw the entire balance off. And like knives, guns should have a certain point of balance that makes holding them comfortable and ergonomic. The 686, despite its underlug, kept the balance at a very comfortable point. The GP-100 4- and 6-inchers, however, shifted the point of balance and hoped shooters would adjust for it. Ruger, too, could have produced its gun without an underlug. But the only reason I can think of for so doing would be following S&W's lead. With no substantial steel in the aft part of the gun, a slightly heavy barrel would have had a much better balance point. The weight would still shift forward in the hand without it feeling like it was going to jump out of it.
Click to expand...

Apparently you did not realize it, but Ruger offered the GP100 for several years with a half-lug barrel. An example of such can be seen in post #6 of this thread:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=445495

Despite this offering, the full-lug variant remained the most popular on the GP100. Simply put, if enough people wanted half-lug barrels, Ruger would probably still be making them.

The new gun certainly didn't need to be beefier, nor heavier. Some people need to carry their .357s while hiking, hunting, camping and traveling cross country by car. The whole idea of making the gun the size it was was to reduce weight and size from the N-frame. And the highway patrol of the early 30s considered the .357 to be a near perfect gun, except for size and weight. The round flattened tires, punched through car doors and even through seats to stop bad guys. So had the K-frame actually been able to indefinitely contain the bigger boom, there would have been no need to change anything.
Click to expand...

While the Security Six is certainly a very strong gun, they aren't indestructible. While very rare, I have heard of people shooting Security Sixes loose with maximum or over-maximum charges of slow-burning powder and heavy 180-200gr bullets (this was mainly in the heyday of long-range silhouette shooting). While Ruger did, for a time, offer the Redhawk in .357 Magnum that could stand up to this sort of abuse, making one "in between" model as opposed to two different models seems more consistent with their business strategy.

Also, Ruger does, in fact, offer a smaller, lighter revolvers for those who feel that the GP100 is too cumbersome. The SP101 was introduced in 1989 one year after the discontinuation of the Security Six. Because it is even smaller and lighter, the SP101 is even more attractive to people wanting something more compact than the GP100 than the the Security Six was.

Ruger's design was sheer genius. Make a solid frame with parts that fit down and up into the frame; offset the latch recess so it wasn't directly over the chamber. But I've never figured out why Ruger's forcing cones tended to hold up for hundreds of thousands of rounds while the S&W forcing cones seemed to crack easier. Both looked about the same, with the 66 forcing cone even looking a little bigger than Ruger's. I've heard about a lot of cracked Model 19 forcing cones and substantially fewer 66 cracks. Stainless steel has more chromium, which resists the carbon from being leeched out of it be the hot magnum rounds; still, there were more cracked forcing cones on Smiths overall than Rugers. Is the Ruger barrel investment cast? I would think it would have to be made of forged steel, but I don't know. Smith ran ads early on with the 686, claiming its forged steel frames made their guns more durable. They finally stopped because most gun owners knew better.
Click to expand...

First and foremost, the issue with the K-Frames forcing cones was not their thickness or even the steel from which they were made, but rather their geometry. The K-Frame is somewhat unique among S&W's in that, with the older-style one-piece barrel, it requires a flat area to be milled onto the outside surface of the forcing cone at the six o' clock position in order to clear the yoke. This makes a natural weak spot and, when K-Frame forcing cones did crack, it was almost always at the six o' clock position. The "re-design" that produced the L-Frame was actually quite simple: the frame was made a bit taller to allow for a larger frame window that alleviated the need for a relief cut on the forcing cone.

Also, the problems with K-Frame forcing cones has been over exaggerated. The vast majority of these guns never experienced a problem and those that did were usually subjected to thousands of rounds of full-power .357 Magnum ammo with light (<140gr) bullets.

While the forcing cone issue likely played a large part in the introduction of the L-Frame, it certainly wasn't the only factor. While the K-Frame's grip fits a very large number of people well, the recoil with .357 Magnum ammunition was objectionable to many due to it's weight or lack-thereof. Conversely, while the N-Frame was heavy enough to make full-power .357 Magnum ammunition quite controllable, it's larger grip frame and higher bore axis didn't fit some people with small hands all that well. The L-Frame is a compromise in that it retains the K-Frames grip (stocks for K and L-Frames are interchangeable) and has only a slightly higher bore axis, but the combination of a slightly larger frame and full-lug barrel gives it the weight, and thus recoil dampening characteristics, of an N-Frame.

Now, please don't misunderstand me in any of this as I mostly agree with you. I too greatly prefer the look and balance of a half-lug barrel (of course I'm a S&W guy so that's what I'm used to). This is why I've never owned either a Ruger GP100 or a full-lug S&W. As a matter of fact, even though many people wax over a Colt Python, I prefer my S&W M27 due in no small part to the aesthetics and balance of its half-lug barrel. That being said, I understand that there are a lot of people who do not share my tastes and preferences and that is why we have the GP100 and full-lug S&W's. Fortunately for me, there are still plenty of half-lug S&W's available, but I can understand the frustration of a Ruger person since you don't have nearly the variety to choose from that I do.
 
I still believe that Ruger made a mistake by discontinuing the Security Six. Next to the S&W K frame the Six is just the right size for most users. I am small and have smaller than average hands. The Security Six as well as the K frame are more comfortable for me. I have had GP100s and S&W 686s. I am not a fan of full lug revolvers. Ruger made half lug GP100 but they made the decision to discontinue them.
Bottom line: I have a Police Service Six 4 inch that I have owned longer than my S&W revolvers. My favorite revolvers are the Service Six and a S&W 10-7. I have a love for police service revolvers.
 
Me, too.

I reckon its just a matter of taste. When Ruger came out with its new guns, it beefed up areas of the gun that didn't need it. And while it helps those who shoot at the range, the heavier weight of the gun is burdensome for those who carry the gun out in the wild. Ruger should have offered two barrels.

Anyone remember when Ruger introduced its "heavy barrel" Security-Six? I went right out and got one, and was surprised to see that it wasn't all that significant of a change. And the shorter barreled models were terribly inconsistent. I had two that were so heavy and thick that it could really make a difference when shooting heavy loads. But I had another one that had a regular barrel and felt better in my hand.

The way I look at it, I'm more concerned with how a gun feels before it goes off. I can recover pretty well from any magnum recoil from a .357. The thinner barrel version was easier to carry, hold and pick up on fast moving objects that might be coming at me. The thicker barreled ones were heavier and much easier to shoot at distant objects. But Ruger never advertised that it was producing both barrels. All three of mine were purchased at the same time, but two were very heavy barrels and one much more standard. (If you've ever seen the heavy barrel on a Smith Model 13, they were pretty hefty. The two short barrel Security-Sixes had barrels about like the 13.)

My friend who shot the cougar said it dropped out of a tree and rushed him. He had his Dan Wesson in a shoulder holster, pulled it out and aimed just in front of the cat and fired. Still, it didn't hit him in the head. It hit further back and dropped him, making me suspect he hit the animal somewhere along the spine. He said it was the most beautiful creature he'd ever seen and suffered some remorse in having to shoot it. But friends told him it was just not the way these cats act, so he sent the head to the CDC in Colorado and the report that came back listed it as rabid. It's a horrible disease.
 
The K-Frame is somewhat unique among S&W's in that, with the older-style one-piece barrel, it requires a flat area to be milled onto the outside surface of the forcing cone at the six o' clock position in order to clear the yoke. This makes a natural weak spot and, when K-Frame forcing cones did crack, it was almost always at the six o' clock position.
Click to expand...
What you say is true, but there were many Rugers that had the same problem -- a small cut out in the forcing cone in the six-o'clock position. But though they were monitored for problems, the forcing cones held, even with the cut out. Even so, I have heard of Ruger cones cracking, but in all the photos I've seen of all cracked forcing cones, in the vast majority there's also evidence of forcing cone erosion, which means there were either a lot of loads, or numerous light bullet loads -- those that leech out the carbon and make the steel brittle.

This S&W forcing cone appears to have been abused with hi-powered loads and pushed far beyond the scope of its endurance.

 
686 v. Security 6

Never owned a GP series revolver, but have walked a considerable number of miles, much literally, ....beside a 4" Sec.-6 ( and a variety of K frames) and a similarly barreled L- Frame.

The Sec 6 was purchased, by me, as a spare duty revolver. And, as noted, I got it for considerably less than any K-framed 'Smith. The K-frame Smiths were "issue". Both of those revolver families were not difficult to carry in full blown duty rigs or in more svelte belt/holster rigs for backcountry use.

The L-frame was another matter entirely. As the agency switched over to actual magnum ammo, the K's began to show their age, and some problems as noted manifested. The L-frame got more and more attention. And the "L" was worlds bigger and heavier. My empty L weighed more than a similarly empty 629, N-frame .44 mag Mtn gun. Yeah, we don't carry empty guns, but the point stands. For hoofing them around, the L was to darn big. And in those days, I was in darn good shape. But the weight and the dimensions of the L to include the corresponding holster, was too much. And there was no easy way to screw on a set of service grips and conceal them either (well, you could put on the grips, but revolver was still big and heavy.

Honestly, I'd just as soon have had a M28, ....but I never saw one of those, or a M27, or a Python, in anybody's holster, with my outfit.
 
Quote:
The K-Frame is somewhat unique among S&W's in that, with the older-style one-piece barrel, it requires a flat area to be milled onto the outside surface of the forcing cone at the six o' clock position in order to clear the yoke. This makes a natural weak spot and, when K-Frame forcing cones did crack, it was almost always at the six o' clock position.

What you say is true, but there were many Rugers that had the same problem -- a small cut out in the forcing cone in the six-o'clock position. But though they were monitored for problems, the forcing cones held, even with the cut out. Even so, I have heard of Ruger cones cracking, but in all the photos I've seen of all cracked forcing cones, in the vast majority there's also evidence of forcing cone erosion, which means there were either a lot of loads, or numerous light bullet loads -- those that leech out the carbon and make the steel brittle.
Click to expand...

First of all, it needs to be stated that K-Frame forcing cone issues are actually quite rare (most people were probably scarcely aware of them before the internet). While by no means an expert, I've handled and examined a good number of S&W K-Frame Magnums of varying vintage and condition over the years and I've never seen a cracked forcing cone in person.

Secondly, there are a number of factors that may or may not contribute to cracked forcing cones in K-Frames. As you pointed out, the phenomenon, while not unheard of, is much rarer in the stainless Model 65 and 66 than the blued Model 13 and 19. Likewise, there is some indication that the models produced immediately after the changeover to crush-fit rather than pinned barrels (M13-3, 19-5, 65-3, and 66-2) are slightly more prone to crack forcing cones due to issues with barrel torque. Also, I have seen some who have examined several guns with cracked forcing cones state that the majority of them had excessive leading or other fouling in the barrel and looked to have been poorly maintained.

The most likely answer, to my mind, and the one which makes the most technical sense is that the likelihood of cracking probably correlates most to the type and quantity of ammunition that is fired. In just about every way that can be conceived, full power magnum ammunition with light-for-caliber bullets are harder on not just the forcing cone, but all of the gun. A very good explanation can be found in the following article:

http://www.gunblast.com/Butch_MagnumLoads.htm

In a nutshell, the author explains that the shorter bearing surface of lightweight magnums allows hot gas and burning powder to escape around the bullet and enter the barrel prematurely. He also explains that lighter bullets will impact the forcing cone with higher velocity and at a slightly different angle. I would also add that, if a full power load, lighter bullets are generally loaded atop larger charges of powder and, because they require less pressure to push out of the case, they will also require a lower proportion of the powder to be burned before the bullet exits the case.

In spite of this, many people report firing their K-Frames almost exclusively with full-power 110 and 125gr Magnum ammunition and never having an issue. Also, while exceedingly rare, I have heard of cracked forcing cones happening to other brands of gun including Rugers and Colts.

FWIW, my own experience is this: my S&W M66-2 has, conservatively, seen at least 4,000-5,000 rounds in the time I've owned it the vast majority of which (as in all but a box or two) have been .357 Magnums. That being said, I've probably only ever fired 100-200 rounds of .357 Magnum ammunition with bullets lighter than 140gr. Nearly all of the rounds through my gun have been either factory loaded 158gr JHP/JSP loadings or my equivalent power handloads with 158gr LSWC bullets with the odd box of 140-145gr factory ammo like Winchester Silvertip or Hornady LeverEvolution thrown in here and there. My gun, including the forcing cone, are in just as good a shape today as it was the day I bought it nearly eight years ago. I also have fairly recently acquired a M13-4 which I plan to shoot in the same manner.

The way I look at it is as follows: the S&W Combat Magnum and its descendants were designed to be used with 158gr ammunition because that was pretty much the only factory ammunition available at the time. As such, it seems prudent to me to shoot my gun with the sort of ammunition for which it was designed. I also think, as you have concluded, that cracked forcing cones don't generally happen spontaneously and that other signs of wear such as visible erosion of the forcing cone and topstrap would most likely precede a cracked forcing cone. My guns display none of those "early warning signs" so I will continue to shoot them with what I consider to be appropriate .357 Magnum ammo.

Back to the comparison between a K-Frame and a Security Six, while the Security Six is probably somewhat less prone to cracking, the difference probably isn't as great as we've been led to believe because it simply wasn't all that common on the S&W's. I would venture to guess that the fact that S&W K-Frame Magnums were in production for 34 years longer than the Security Six probably has a lot to do with the fact that more of them cracked forcing cones; there are just a lot more of them out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top