Author Topic: Ruger DA's-why did they change? (Read 1694 times)

BobYoung · « **on:** April 04, 2006, 05:58:44 PM »

My second CF revolver was a 4" stainless Security Six. Have owned it 30 years and still love it. Outshoots my Python and I can shoot it as well DA as SA.

Bought a 7.5" Redhawk. Seemed like a big Security Six. Very accurate, but SA not as nice. Shoots better DA than SA. Think I've owned that one about 25 years.

In the '90s bought a SP101. Again very accurate. Trigger alot like the Security Six. It too was a keeper.

About the same time I bought a 6" blued GP100. Seemed like a totally different gun. Action timing seemed much different* than the three earlier guns. Wasn't accurate, could never shoot it well. It got traded.

*How different? The cylinders on the Sec. Six/Redhawk/SP101 all stop rotating and lock up well before the hammer reaches full cock. When firing DA, I can feel the cylinder lock drop in and it is a convenient point for staging the trigger pull and stabilizing the sight picture. The GP100's cylinder locked up later at the point when the hammer reached full cock in the DA pull, just before the hammer falls.

Is this correct; is the GP100 basically different? If so, why did they change a design as successful as the Security Six? If there was a problem with the Sec. Six action, why was the Redhawk made the same way?

Hoping someone can clear up something that's always mystified me.
Bob

BobYoung · « **Reply #1 on:** April 08, 2006, 04:27:37 PM »

OK, it's a dumb question I guess. Let me ask another:

Is there anyone else who has owned both a GP100 and a Security Six that has noticed a difference in the feel of their actions and in the timing of their lockups?

olywa · « **Reply #2 on:** April 09, 2006, 11:10:34 AM »

I've owned both a 6" and a 4" Security Six as well as a first-year Redhawk. My take on their actions is very similar to yours. I still have the 4" SS and I'll never let it go. However I moved on to a Super Blackhawk in .44 Mag and I don't miss the Redhawk at all.

I'm interested in seeing what kind of response your question gets because I've been thinking about picking up a 3" fixed sight GP100. Maybe I'd be better served to locate an older Speed Six.

baranjhn · « **Reply #3 on:** April 12, 2006, 04:34:18 AM »

I'm not sure about the timing and lock up issue you had with your GP-100. In my experience, the GP-100 is an outstanding revolver. My first handgun I ever bought was one. I found it strong and very accurate. I was issued another GP-100 as a service weapon, and I thought it was an excellent revolver as well. That being said, I've never shot a Redhawk, any Six model or the SP101. Maybe they are a little different, but it's been my understanding, that when Ruger finds something that works, they don't change it. I know this doesn't help you a lot, but I can't think of a more reliable workhorse. In fact, I've been pining for a six inch s.s. model for a while now.

John

papajohn428 · « **Reply #4 on:** April 23, 2006, 07:17:17 AM »

If I remember right the GP-100 was brought out in late '85 or so, the idea at the time was to phase in a new "Family" of revolvers, in different frame sizes. The Redhawk had come several years earlier, the GP-100 was the next in line, the SP series debuted later. There were several features of the design common to all three, and they sold well. I guess someone at Ruger just decided it was time to upgrade their product line. You know how those marketing guys are..........if it's not "New And Improved" they aren't happy. Among revolver people, they sold well, but wound up becoming a victim of the 9mm craze, when every department under the sun suddenly decided they needed a 9mm crunchenticker instead of what had worked well for 80 years. The smart folks bought the used PD trade-ins for $100-150 a gun, and giggled all the way home. Our PD-issued S&W 681's went for a hundred bucks a pop, and we bought them by the dozen. I wish I still them!

But to echo the chorus, the Security-Six and it's brother the Speed-Six were excellent guns, shot well, had better triggers, and wore like iron. But once Smith brought out the 686, they felt the need to upgrade, and phased out the old for the new. Maybe they should have kept the older models in the line, too!

Papajohn

BobYoung · « **Reply #5 on:** April 25, 2006, 09:32:18 AM »

That's my guess, PapaJohn, just following the herd. The cylinders in the Smiths and the Colts lock up late in the DA trigger pull, just before hammer fall. Therefore the 'sweep' of the trigger pull feels smoother than it does for the Security Six, which locks the cylinder about 2/3 of the way through the pull and telegraphs the fact through the trigger. Guess Ruger figured their new gun needed to be like the Smiths and the Colts. Might be what the competition shooters were looking for at the time.

Too bad. I liked the looks of the GP100 and it's hell for stout but, whether it was me or the gun, I just couldn't get it to shoot like my Sec. 6. Prolly just had a bad 'un.

Maybe because I never had any formal training in how to properly shoot DA; feeling the Sec. 6 cylinder lock up just prior to the thing going off was a 'feature' not a 'bug'.
Bob

Siskiyou · « **Reply #6 on:** April 25, 2006, 11:47:19 AM »

A few thoughts on the Security-Six and the GP-100. First off I never carried one on duty because I was always issued a S&W until the jump to autoloaders occurred.

In the early 80's law enforcement started shooting more .357 Mag ammo in their S&W M19's and M66's. Many of those weapons started shooting loose. It started getting scary on the fireing line with all the lead shaving flying around. I lost a little blood in the process. Because of this problem S&W started marketing their larger 686 to Law Enforcement.

S&W had the largest share of the law enforcement market. But other were trying to get into market. I read a published report of testing conducted at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center for the Border Patrol. Before the test was started criteria was established for reliability and accuracy. I believe the goal was to fire two Security-Sixs ten thousand rounds. At the end of the 10,000 rounds both weapons were functional and exceeding the established accuracy requirement. I do not recall at what point it happen, but accuracy improved after a certain number of rounds were fired.

In earlier test S&W M19/M66 had failed before 3000 rounds. They had to be repaired a number of times to complete 10,000 rounds. Accuracy had also fallen below exceptable.

There was a big switch over to the S&W 686 when it came out. A few of the departments I was associated with would clean and test the new S&W before they were issued to the field. S&W was losing the officers trust because new from the factory guns had problems.

S&W had set the standard with the larger 686, Ruger responded with the GP-100. I was never issued a GP-100 but I was happy to fire a few hundred rounds down range with one. I like the GP-100 and never heard of a problem.

The larger frame revolvers never got a real chance to prove their long term value, because a few years later departments were turning them in for autoloaders.

I was thinking about buying a Security-Six when the autoloader change came about. I changed my mind about the purchase and pickup an autoloader.

Rover · « **Reply #7 on:** May 31, 2006, 02:09:17 PM »

Pulled out the SP, GP, Redhawk today and tried them (unfortunately, no longer have any of the Security Sixes). Yup, the GP does lock up a bit later.

Regarding the change 2 points. As noted above Smith had problems with the 19/66 using 125 gr hot loads in the forcing cone area. They came out with the 586/686 with full underlugged barrel; the underlug was probably to copy some of the aura of the Python. About the same time Ruger set about to design a Six Series replacement and made it a bit beefier. Why the replacement? So the story goes the unit cost was less vs. the Security Six in production. I wish they had not put the full underlug on the 4" adjustable sighted ones but they did.

The basic innards of the GP-100 are almost identical to the SP series and somewhat different than a Six Series (trigger return spring, frame stud vs full grip frame) and lockup at the cylinder crane. The latter was pioneered on the Redhawk was has different innards with a single spring used both for trigger return and mainspring. The later Super Redhawk has the same internal design as the GP and even takes the same grips.

papajohn428 · « **Reply #8 on:** May 31, 2006, 02:30:16 PM »

If you don't like the underlug on your GP-100, and it's a stainless gun, you could always remove it. Sounds like a good weekend project to me! Personally, I like a gun that balances just ahead of my knuckles, it seems to balance better for me. I'm used to heavy guns on my hips, a good holster and belt arrangement makes all the difference.

Papajohn

Rover · « **Reply #9 on:** June 01, 2006, 05:56:21 AM »

I have been debating that in my mind. I think the fixed sight GP's are a bit lighter not only in the barrel but through the topstrap, also. The fixed sight barrel also has a thinner barrel profile with the half underlug which would take off a bit more weight. At the Ruger Forum some time ago Dennis Prisbey sent off a GP-100 4" model to have the lug removed. I think there was a writeup in "Combat Handguns" on it. Right now have a 686 Mtn. Gun which is about 5 oz lighter through the muzzle so haven't gotten around to it. Probably part of what makes the 686 lighter is the 7 shot cylinder which takes off a couple of oz. vs. the 6 shot.