Ruger double-action .357 revolver

I've had no experience with any Ruger .357 double-action revolver. How do they compare in overall accuracy with an S&W K, L, or N-frame .357? I'm interested in all, but particularly the Redhawk.

The Rugers are stronger than Smith and Wessons, but I have never been able to get a Ruger's double action as smooth as a Smith and Wesson

Accuracy should be on par with S&W.

^^^Agreed with both. I routinely shoot a Ruger Security Six from the '70s with full magnums - no troubles and really nice accuracy.

The Ruger mainspring is a coil, not like the S&W K, L, and N-frames, which mostly use leaf springs. I think that is one reaqson Rugers just never seem as smooth, but what do I know.

Remember, the Redhawks are a large frame gun, on a par with N frames. If an N is too big then a Redhawk will be also. The GP100s are more K frame size. Big hands? Go with the Redhawk. Smaller hands? Try the GP100. Either way, accuracy shouldn't be an issue.

lihpster said:

Remember, the Redhawks are a large frame gun, on a par with N frames. If an N is too big then a Redhawk will be also. The GP100s are more K frame size. Big hands? Go with the Redhawk. Smaller hands? Try the GP100. Either way, accuracy shouldn't be an issue.

Click to expand...

I just picked-up this Redhawk yesterday. Here it is with my Highway Patrolman for a size comparison.

I have shot a 4" Security Six and a 4" GP-100. Accuracy was not a concern.

They felt to be the sizes of overbuilt K and L frames respectively. I can imagine a .357 Redhawk would seen like an overbuilt N frame.

Based on performance alone, it makes very little difference which, although mechanically, the Ruger is superior. For cosmetics, I prefer the S&W.

I own a couple 2 3/4” Ruger Speed Sixes, one in .357 Mag and another in 9mm Luger, as well as a 2 3/4” Security Six. I also own a 4” Service Six and a 6” Security Six both in .357.

The Speed Six has a round butt and low profile fixed sights and comes primarily in the 2 3/4” length with a few 4” made (although they are probably Speed Six frames used to fill Service Six contracts.

The Service Six/Police Service Six revolvers have the same fixed sight but on a square butt frame and we’re normally made with 4” and 6” barrels.

The Security Six also has a square butt, even on the 2 3/4” version, has adjustable sights and was made in 2 3/4”, 4” and 6” lengths.

Ruger designed them to compete with the S&W Models 13, 19, 65 and 66 and their respective configurations. Ruger used investment casting for the frame and for the fire control parts. The frames lack a side plate and are stronger than a S&W frame, as all the fire control parts load from the bottom. The investment cast fire control parts were conservatively designed and as such as slightLy larger than corresponding S&W parts. They are very strong and broken fire control parts are almost unheard of on the Ruger DA revolvers.

The frame was also designed to be stronger around the forcing cone and the major selling point is that it was designed for a steady diet of .357 Magnum ammo, where the Model 19, etc wasn’t. I’ve seen a few heavily used Security Sixes with very eroded forcing cones but I’ve never seen one crack. A Model 19 or 66 with similar forcing cone erosion would have almost certainly cracked in the thin spot where the forcing cone is relieved for clearance for the crane.

S&W responded to the Ruger Speed/Service/ Security series by coming out with the stronger L frame.

As noted above the triggers on the Rugers feel a bit more mechanical than on comparable S&Ws, and it’s probably due to the use of (more reliable) coil springs and the greater mass of the fire control parts. But the trigger pull is otherwise generally quite good.

Like many people I prefer the look of the S&W revolvers, but to be honest if I had to live on a deserted island with a single revolver and an unlimited supply of .357 Mag ammo, I’d take a Security Six.

——-

The major change with the GP 100 was the addition of a crane lock and the switch to a peg style grip frame. The peg grip allows for a much wider range of adjustment in trigger reach and grip size by swapping grips than is possible with the grip frame design of the K and L grip frame. Unfortunately Ruger also adopted a full under lug and I am not an under lug fan as they just add unnecessary weight and bulk.

The Red Hawk is more or less N frame sized and retains a traditional grip frame. With the standard stocks the trigger reach on a Redhawk is just slightly less than the N frame, but a redesigned Redhawk with a peg grip frame and smaller grip options would sell like hot cakes.

Below are a 2 3/4” Ruger Security Six (top left) and a 2 3/4” Speed Six (bottom left) with (top to bottom on the right) a 2 1/2” Model 66, 3” Model 13, and 3” Model 686+. The Ruger revolvers generally weigh about 2 oz more than a comparable S&W.



Here are a 6” Security Six, a 4” Service Six and a 2 3/4” Speed Six.



You will also find two different styles of recoil shields, the earlier round style and the later scalloped style. I prefer the look of the scalloped style but many Ruger fans prefer the round style.

Bought my 6" Ruger Security Six Stainless in 1976, trigger pull too heavy, installed a set of Bullseye or Trapper springs, smooth trigger pull, 100% reliable.

For accuracy, they are both outstanding, especially if you handload. I grew up shooting Rugers, and I love them both.

But if you shoot a S&W, and then shoot a Ruger, the trigger pull is like night and day! If I had more money I'd get trigger jobs on all my Rugers.

I had a .357 Redhawk. Massive Revolver. Cylinder way oversized for the caliber. Ended up selling but I now regret that decision.

I wish Ruger would revive the Six series sometime. They're better looking and a better overall size than the GP100 IMO, and their partial underlugs also enable them to not be as front heavy. The Service Six is arguably one of the prettiest revolvers that Ruger ever put out. I'd love to see a Classic Ruger series to compete with S&W's while I'm making demands here.

I've got a Speed Six and a Redhawk .44 Mag. The Redhawk is as has been said already a massively built revolver, not as pretty imo as a Smith, but stronger. The Speed is a good-size, slightly heavier than a K frame Smith. I agree with the coil spring v flat spring, although the Speed has a pretty good trigger on it.

My Redhawk experience is with the “original” ones when you only had 5.5 or 7.5 inch barrels to chose from. Mine are 5.5 inch and amazingly accurate. What’s more, the Redhawks have a trigger every bit as good as any S&W I’ve ever had.

The “Six Series” guns don’t have a trigger that good but all are built like tanks.

The comments are appreciated and helpful, as I was sure they would be.

While Rugers' are generally thought to be more heavily built than a comparable S&W, they are not indestructible. I got a chance to examine a blued 6 inch Ruger GP100 with the forcing cone worn and split in a star pattern. I hate to think what kind of "planet wrecking" loads that it took to do that kind of injury to what is generally thought to be an extremely stout firearm.

The Ruger Security Six , Speed Six , Service Six series are great revolvers . I have a 4" Stainless steel Security six , very accurate . My sister used to shoot the heads off rattlesnakes with her Ruger Security Six 6" blue (one shot ) . on her 40 acres . Regards Paul

I have a GP100 that I've used in IDPA. Trigger was a little heavy but I replaced springs with Wolff springs. Easy to do, no side plate to remove.
A fellow shooter who had a GP100 tried it and was amazed at the difference. Never had a light strike with it.

I had a 7" Redhawk and a 5.5" Redhawk, and a 2.5" snubby Security Six, all stainless, back in the 80's and early 90's. Had to sell all three. I miss them still. Very accurate, heavy, seemingly indestructable.

I now have a blued GP100 .357 and a stainless GP100 .44 spl, and love them both, tack drivers with the right ammo, especially with the right handloads. Slightly bigger and heavier than equivalent Smiths, and the triggers on both are very good.