Stronger: S&W K Frame .357 or Ruger Six Series .357
- Thread starter Homerboy
- Start date
Hi,
The GP100 is a large medium frame revolver. The Security Six is a medium frame revolver. The main advantage is the lock system on the two. The Security Six has the same system found on the S&W model 19. The GP100 has a double lock system at both front and rear of the cylinder. Also the GP100 is beefier in the top strap and frame but not much. The Security has the traditional grip frame where the GP100 has a stub where the grips attach too.
For me I am a big Security Six fan. The Six series is the closest to the S&W K frame magnum only stronger. The GP100 is stronger but at the price of being bulkier. Most GP100s have full under lug barrels. This makes the revolver seem muzzle heavy. Similiar to the S&W 686 or Colt Python.
I have a Police Service Six. This revolver has seen many 357 magnums of all weights. The revolver is still tight and lockup is great. The forcing cone is in excellent condition. But I do keep it clean. I had a GP100 and like the revolver but still preferred my Service Six.
Hope this helps,
Howard
The GP100 is a large medium frame revolver. The Security Six is a medium frame revolver. The main advantage is the lock system on the two. The Security Six has the same system found on the S&W model 19. The GP100 has a double lock system at both front and rear of the cylinder. Also the GP100 is beefier in the top strap and frame but not much. The Security has the traditional grip frame where the GP100 has a stub where the grips attach too.
For me I am a big Security Six fan. The Six series is the closest to the S&W K frame magnum only stronger. The GP100 is stronger but at the price of being bulkier. Most GP100s have full under lug barrels. This makes the revolver seem muzzle heavy. Similiar to the S&W 686 or Colt Python.
I have a Police Service Six. This revolver has seen many 357 magnums of all weights. The revolver is still tight and lockup is great. The forcing cone is in excellent condition. But I do keep it clean. I had a GP100 and like the revolver but still preferred my Service Six.
Hope this helps,
Howard
bamaranger
New member
FLETC
I was lucky enough to pull a couple of TDY assignmwnts at the Fed Law Enf Tr. Ctr in the mid-late 80's when the revolver was still the LE staple. Supposedly, the US Border Patrol shot the Ruger 6's, side by side w/ Smith K's until failure,........... no details, just lunch table talk.
The Rugers were the hands down winners according to those that were supposed to have been there.
I was lucky enough to pull a couple of TDY assignmwnts at the Fed Law Enf Tr. Ctr in the mid-late 80's when the revolver was still the LE staple. Supposedly, the US Border Patrol shot the Ruger 6's, side by side w/ Smith K's until failure,........... no details, just lunch table talk.
The Rugers were the hands down winners according to those that were supposed to have been there.
bamaranger
New member
GP
The GP is a stronger revolver than the 6's ,as others have said. I'm inclined to compare it to an L frame, but have no real experience with GP's.
The GP is a stronger revolver than the 6's ,as others have said. I'm inclined to compare it to an L frame, but have no real experience with GP's.
I have experience with the Six Series, GP100 and S&W 686 L frame. I have owned all of them and still own a Police Service Six 4 inch and a 686-2 4 inch.
The GP100 is stronger than the Six series. The lockup system is better than the Six series because the GP100 is design to lock at the front and rear of the cylinder. Also the top strap is thicker and of course the frame is bigger. But there is not much diffenence. The Six series has the traditional grip frame. The GP100 has a stub at the end of the frame where the grips are installed. Some people like it and some don't.
I feel the GP100 is stronger than the Six but not much.
The L frame is the direct competition to the GP100. These two have been compared many times on forums. Being that I own both of them to me there is not much difference in strengh. The GP100 has the better lockup system and heavier trigger group but is still not as refined as a 686. The 686 has the better double action trigger. Both will shoot large amounts of factory 357 magnums with no known problems. I have never had any problems with either. But I have not had any problems with my Ruger Service Six. Its older than the GP100 or 686 and has seen a lot more 357 magnums without any problems.
Summary: My favorite out of the three is my Service Six. The Service Six is the closest to the S&W K frame only stronger. The GP100 and the 686 are fine revolvers but they are muzzle heavy do to the full underlug barrel. I prefer the Service Six or the K frame magnum.
Regards,
Howard
^^^ That's a good summary. The 686 and GP are nice guns, but I just prefer the feel of the Sixes and K Frames (as well as the thin barreled N Frames, may as well through them in their too).
I imagine the GP (and 686) may be a bit stonger than the Ruger Six, but it isn't enough to really be concerned with. And if one is inclined to shoot a massive quantity of atomic powered .357 Mag loads through their revolver, I'd suggest stepping up to a medium powered .44 Mag load in a quality .44 Mag revolver (or .41 Mag if you want to be different).
I imagine the GP (and 686) may be a bit stonger than the Ruger Six, but it isn't enough to really be concerned with. And if one is inclined to shoot a massive quantity of atomic powered .357 Mag loads through their revolver, I'd suggest stepping up to a medium powered .44 Mag load in a quality .44 Mag revolver (or .41 Mag if you want to be different).
Lost Sheep
New member
Some other differences
The GP (also SP. Redhawk and Super Redhawk) have their ejector rods offset from the centerline of the cylinder. This allows more metal between the barrel threads and the frame's cutout for the ejector rod. Not that this was ever a problem for the Sixes, but apparently somebody worried about it.
The Sixes went through some minor changes in the grip area (which makes a difference to how the gun feels to some shooters. Some guns had a slight "hump" in the upper backstrap. Bothered some shooters, appreciated by others.
There was also some differences in the shape of the rear of the right-side recoil shield. Made not a bit of difference to the gun's operation or feel, though.
Lost Sheep
The GP (also SP. Redhawk and Super Redhawk) have their ejector rods offset from the centerline of the cylinder. This allows more metal between the barrel threads and the frame's cutout for the ejector rod. Not that this was ever a problem for the Sixes, but apparently somebody worried about it.
The Sixes went through some minor changes in the grip area (which makes a difference to how the gun feels to some shooters. Some guns had a slight "hump" in the upper backstrap. Bothered some shooters, appreciated by others.
There was also some differences in the shape of the rear of the right-side recoil shield. Made not a bit of difference to the gun's operation or feel, though.
Lost Sheep
bamaranger
New member
There's another 6 v. 686 thread running.
I always disliked the l/686 due to their size and bulk. I suppose I'd think the same of a GP. Spoiled by K mags and a Ruger 6 early on.
I should have NEVER sold the 6, but I did.
I always disliked the l/686 due to their size and bulk. I suppose I'd think the same of a GP. Spoiled by K mags and a Ruger 6 early on.
I should have NEVER sold the 6, but I did.
One thing that you might want to consider is that the Rugers are cast framed while the Smith's are forged. Smith's to me are better balanced when in hand and therefore help with shot placement when there is time for that and since the Smith is better balenced it also helps with quicker shots to the target. Yes, I am partial to Smith and I prefer their handguns but, I consider Rugers to be very well made revolvers as well and I have owned several and shot more. I don't think you would go wrong with either one. As far as the Smiths go stick with the L Frame(i.e. 686, 586 etc) and bigger. If you can find a good slightly used old Mod 28 Hwy Patrolman that would be my choice.
Ruger cast frames have proven to be no less strong than forged steel frames and generally are superior in strength. So, this is rather a moot point in view of Ruger's reputation for building brute strength into their revolvers. As far as balance, a Security/Service/Speed-Six balances every bit at well as a Smith-Wesson K-Frame. I would agree that an L-frame(686/586 etc.) seems to feel better balanced than a GP100. The full grip frame on the L-frame helps to offset the muzzle heavy feel of the full lug barrel. My preference would also be a nice model 28 over an L-frame(586/686 etc.).
Clifford L. Hughes
New member
Homerboy:
The GP100 is the strongest of the three revolvers that you mention. Is the Ruger six series stronger then the Smith K frame I'm not sure. It would take several life times to wear out either one. I like the feel of the K frame even thoug I don't own one. I shot my friends many many times. So make your choice on wich one that you are comfortable with. One advantage, out of the box, the Smith will have a better trigget and with an action job the Smith's action and trigger will shame a Colt Python.
Semper Fi.
Gunnery sergeant
Clifford L. Hughes
USMC Retired
The GP100 is the strongest of the three revolvers that you mention. Is the Ruger six series stronger then the Smith K frame I'm not sure. It would take several life times to wear out either one. I like the feel of the K frame even thoug I don't own one. I shot my friends many many times. So make your choice on wich one that you are comfortable with. One advantage, out of the box, the Smith will have a better trigget and with an action job the Smith's action and trigger will shame a Colt Python.
Semper Fi.
Gunnery sergeant
Clifford L. Hughes
USMC Retired
I'm with Clifford on this ........all of them are strong guns.
...and I own a lot of K frames...model 19's and 66's - that I shoot a steady diet of .357 mag thru in a 158gr bullet ...and many of them, have 10,000 rounds or more thru them...with no signs of any parts close to wearing out...
Heavier doesn't mean stronger...and how strong do you want it to be ...a life of 50,000 rounds...100,000 ...or 250,000 rounds...a lot of guys with K frames shoot at least 3,000 rds a year thru some of them ( that's only 60 boxes a year or 5 boxes a month )...and over 30 yrs that's 90,000 rds ...
and none of the guns you mention will every wear out, in my opinion, with that kind of usage...especially a good K frame S&W..if you take care of it.
...and I own a lot of K frames...model 19's and 66's - that I shoot a steady diet of .357 mag thru in a 158gr bullet ...and many of them, have 10,000 rounds or more thru them...with no signs of any parts close to wearing out...
Heavier doesn't mean stronger...and how strong do you want it to be ...a life of 50,000 rounds...100,000 ...or 250,000 rounds...a lot of guys with K frames shoot at least 3,000 rds a year thru some of them ( that's only 60 boxes a year or 5 boxes a month )...and over 30 yrs that's 90,000 rds ...
and none of the guns you mention will every wear out, in my opinion, with that kind of usage...especially a good K frame S&W..if you take care of it.
I've owned K, S, and N framed Smiths since the late 60's and have never had a problem with any of them...thousands of rounds through a K framed M-19 have failed to loosen it a bit...a '73 gun BTW...and it'll still do sub-2" gps at 25 yds...same with its bigger cousins.
Rugers, all of them, have always had a reputation for sheer strength...my experience has been limited to the single actions....and can attest to their accuracy.... it sometimes has to be seen to be believed.
As to trigger pulls, either double or single action, Smith has always had the reputation that all others compare to..."it's as good as a S&W"...that said, if you do get a Ruger with less than a sterling pull, it can be worked on easier than a case hardened Smith's trigger.
Guess you takes your choice and pays your money...Me? I'd go with a Smith, just 'cause I like their overall look better than the Ruger which seems a bit clunky to me. As to Smith's hated internal lock...I've got two which have not had a problem with several thousand rounds through them...for me, it's a non-issue.
One last thought..if you plan to carry concealed, you might consider one of the J-frame Smiths...good design, thin cylinder of 5 rounds capacity, and they all sport Smith's 2nd to none customer service policy....and I've had experience to back up that last statement...the pic below is of a 5" bbl'd J-frame M-60...a really good trail gun...light but still carries a wallop...
Best Regards, JMHO, Rod
M-60 with a 5 inch barrel...good trail gun...
Rugers, all of them, have always had a reputation for sheer strength...my experience has been limited to the single actions....and can attest to their accuracy.... it sometimes has to be seen to be believed.
As to trigger pulls, either double or single action, Smith has always had the reputation that all others compare to..."it's as good as a S&W"...that said, if you do get a Ruger with less than a sterling pull, it can be worked on easier than a case hardened Smith's trigger.
Guess you takes your choice and pays your money...Me? I'd go with a Smith, just 'cause I like their overall look better than the Ruger which seems a bit clunky to me. As to Smith's hated internal lock...I've got two which have not had a problem with several thousand rounds through them...for me, it's a non-issue.
One last thought..if you plan to carry concealed, you might consider one of the J-frame Smiths...good design, thin cylinder of 5 rounds capacity, and they all sport Smith's 2nd to none customer service policy....and I've had experience to back up that last statement...the pic below is of a 5" bbl'd J-frame M-60...a really good trail gun...light but still carries a wallop...
Best Regards, JMHO, Rod
M-60 with a 5 inch barrel...good trail gun...
When the late Bill Ruger Sr. "unveiled" the "Six Series" revolvers, (the company's first double-action revolver), in an attempt to break the monopoly on police sales held by S&W and Colt in the '70's, he went "all out" on the design and was quite successful. Then, in interviews in the '80's, Ruger Sr. consistently complained that he didn't think that the company "made a dime" off the six series due to it's expensive production cost. Hence, the end of the "Six" series and the start of production for the more profitable GP and SP series of revolvers. Draw your own conclusions but I can tell you this from experience, many agencies that approved the "Six" series for duty carry dropped Ruger from the "approved list" during the transition period to semi-autos. The "powers that be" in many departments and agencies apparently didn't share the shooting public's opinions or confidence regarding the extensive use of cast metal.
Last edited:
Fast forward to 2012................since over 1.5 million six series revolvers had been produced, they have proven to be strong revolvers-stronger than equivalent forged steel K-frame size revolvers-so, it's a moot point now regarding their being made from cast steel. The GP100 and SP101 revolvers are very successful today and are even stronger than the six series(But, not by much)and are also made the same way, out of cast steel. Therefore the powers to be were evidently wrong to have not trusted the six series revolvers due to being made from cast steel parts.
I am not making a judgement here, only a brief trip down memory lane. To this day as a career LEO, I have never worked for an agency that had any Ruger weapons on the approval list for on or off duty use but I am aware of some departments back east that allow them. I believe the agency I currently work for has only one American firearms company on the approval list (the rest are all European products), unless you have "permission" to carry a 1911-A1 on duty (then the list grows to 3 USA companies). My personal opinion is that the "Six" series revolvers are some of the best double action revolvers ever produced by anyone and of much higher quality than the GP/SP series.
Last edited: