1980 Ruger Security Six Function Test

As noted last night, I picked up a 1980 Ruger Security Six 4" .357 Magnum.

Got it to the range on this very hot evening.

I was going to do a big write up, but did a video instead.

No Python for you!!! (It has Pachmayrs)

The new Hickock45...
I like it.

You should be happy with it. My first handgun is a six inch Security Six. Those revolvers handle really well in action revolver matches. With its favorite handloads off bench and bags it would shoot thumb nail sized groups. I kept one of those for prosperity. The action may be decently tuned. Find someone who does Ruger revolver action jobs and it will be sweet.

The SECURITY-SIX is one of the truly great .357s. It's accurate. Reliable. Beautiful in an ugly sort of way. And it doesn't have an underlug barrel! For an outdoor gun, most people carry a gun more than they use it. Lugging a heavy S&W 686 or Ruger GP-100 is just not my way of carrying a good .357.









Anyone else have a SECURITY-SIX? Pictures??

Good shooting! You hit that berm every time.

I have a nice blued one, with a 6" barrel, it was one of the first handguns I bought, back in the 80's. It has a very smooth action.

If I don't have old guy dyslexia, I paid $172.00 (or $127.00 if I do) for my six inch back in 1975. Still works fine. Did have to replace the trigger spring at least once as it broke.

VERY nice!

Ruger: Great Guns For Great Times!

I was showing my nephew some of my guns the other day, and he here's my S&W 686 and said, “This is a beautiful gun and I really think it would be very accurate, but I could never see carrying it while hiking or camping.“ It was out of the mouth of babes! He enjoys hiking and camping, and if he were to take one of his dad's guns, it would be his Ruger Security-Six.

It's one of those things that amaze me. Why can't Smith & Wesson and Ruger understand the simple fact that the .357 Magnum is a superb outdoor gun. Why do they insist on keeping it locked up indoors for exclusive range use? Clearly it was designed for the great outdoors -- not for competition and dark, musty-smelling ranges. Yet by adding large rubber grips and heavy, underlug barrels, that's just what they're doing. Why not reduce the size of the guns and cut down on the weight by adding skinny barrels with ports as options?


What's better than a Ruger Security-Six at one's neck and call? Having three!

Frankly, I would love the ports option. When I first began writing this I thought I wouldn't, but on second thought, why not? And why not offer guns where one could add weights if they choose? I'm sure such a gun would not be difficult to design. I wish Bill Ruger were still alive, as he was a master innovator. S&W went with underlugs for one reason only: because the Colt Python had it. And Ruger did it also for one reason: because S&W did it. The Python was the culprit, and it was comparatively ancient technology. While Ruger and S&W were making guns for the outdoorsman, Colt made it's remarkable .357 Python for the competitor. Even Colt's Trooper Mark III (a so-so gun for its day) and its very sweet Mark V didn't have the cumbersome underlug.


Often the strengths of Ruger's designs are hidden. The
cylinder stop is offset and the ratchet and the pawl are
larger than they need to be.

I don't have a high regard for the folks running either Ruger or S&W. Instead of being innovators, they are reactionists. They see what the competition is up to and merely copy them. There was actually no reason to ever stop making the Security-Six. If Ruger felt the need to change its line, had I been in charge, I would have made the forcing cone a bit larger, modified the grip a little and removed the warning. In big letters on both sides of the barrel, I would have stamped the words: “.357 Magnum." And under it I would have put, “Ruger Security-Six Masterpiece“ in smaller letters. I would have put Millett sights on the gun and finally, I would have redesigned the hammer to be a bit smaller and more attractive. Had Ruger done that, it could have had S&W for breakfast.

My opinion only. What do you think? Good ideas, or am I a bitter old man?

Longevity issues aside, doesn't the K-frame Model 66 (combat magnum) also cover this territory? Or is it substantially heavier than the security six?

Personally, my favorite 357 Magnum carry is the SP101 with 3-inch barrel. It's not that heavy and should get decent velocity on magnum rounds. Seems like a great backpacking option. One does lose a round in the cylinder though. They can often be found for less than $500.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

fidelity said:

Longevity issues aside, doesn't the K-frame Model 66 (combat magnum) also cover this territory? Or is it substantially heavier than the security six?

Click to expand...

Yes. The Security-Six is more durable than the Model 66, but the 66 has a better action. Both should be put back into production, in my view, because they are far better outdoor guns since people carry them far more than they shoot them.

Personally, my favorite 357 Magnum carry is the SP101 with 3-inch barrel. It's not that heavy and should get decent velocity on magnum rounds. Seems like a great backpacking option. One does lose a round in the cylinder though. They can often be found for less than $500.

Click to expand...

I agree. Since I already have a 3-inch Speed-Six, I chose the 2.25-inch SP-101. For the extra .75-inch, the gun picks up a lot more weight and gives very little in velocity. The 3-incher is fine, but Ruger exacts a lot of weight with little gain. The Security-Six is a superb revolver. So is the 66 S&W. But they really should come back into production.

I put a set of Pachmayrs on the Ruger and I have been carrying it a lot. I love .357, but the 6 inch 586 was a lot of gun to carry effectively. The 4 inch Ruger makes a great carry revolver, and I can carry even the hottest loads in it without fear of the gun not being able to handle them.