Model 28 vs ruger security six
- Thread starter kingston73
- Start date
Grayfox
US Veteran
You're really comparing apples to oranges due to the difference in frame size. The S&W N vs the Ruger's more K size.
The Model 28 is legendary. Absolutely outstanding revolver. You'll never go wrong buying one.
However, I'm a huge fan of the old Ruger Six Series revolvers and have three. 2.75" and 4" Security Sixs and a 2.75" Speed Six. I prefer these over any of the K-frame S&W .357s.
The Rugers are extremely tough. They've have been described as "built like a tank" with a top strap that resembles a rail road tie.
These things will hold up strong with the heaviest .357 loads.
The size makes them easy to handle and carry.
As mentioned the earlier guns had what was refereed to as the "low back" grip frame. Many people didn't care for it and it didn't last long. Starting with Serial number pre-fix 151, they went with the "high back" frame until the end of production. Be aware that aftermarket grips for the "low backs" are hard to come by.
Another thing to consider is that Ruger discontinued the Six series in 1988. They're becoming very hard to find and somewhat collectible. I've been searching locally for a 6" for years and haven't been able to find one anywhere close to me.
My advice is to handle both and go with the one that feels better in your hand.
The Model 28 is legendary. Absolutely outstanding revolver. You'll never go wrong buying one.
However, I'm a huge fan of the old Ruger Six Series revolvers and have three. 2.75" and 4" Security Sixs and a 2.75" Speed Six. I prefer these over any of the K-frame S&W .357s.
The Rugers are extremely tough. They've have been described as "built like a tank" with a top strap that resembles a rail road tie.
These things will hold up strong with the heaviest .357 loads.
The size makes them easy to handle and carry.
As mentioned the earlier guns had what was refereed to as the "low back" grip frame. Many people didn't care for it and it didn't last long. Starting with Serial number pre-fix 151, they went with the "high back" frame until the end of production. Be aware that aftermarket grips for the "low backs" are hard to come by.
Another thing to consider is that Ruger discontinued the Six series in 1988. They're becoming very hard to find and somewhat collectible. I've been searching locally for a 6" for years and haven't been able to find one anywhere close to me.
My advice is to handle both and go with the one that feels better in your hand.
I have both (although my N is a 27 rather than a 28), the Rugers being Security Sixes. Having lived with both I would have to say this is a tough choice.
My 27 is the last personally owned duty revolver I carried. It retired pretty early on because we went to issued S&W 4" 66s which were mandatory carry.
I had chosen the 27 because I thought the N frame was the most rugged revolver I could carry. If the Ruger was in production then it was so early that it was not on the radar screen, at least mine.
Going from the N frame as a carry gun to the K frame was a great step up in comfort since it rode on my hip 8-10 hours a day (night actually). I also liked the shorter length of pull (LOP) for DA. I have large hands but not really long fingers. Conversely though I much preferred the LOP on the N frame for SA pull, which is what we used on the 50 yard line back then.
That was about it for the benefits of the K frame. We had a lot of problems with them. Quite a bit later I went through the CA POST two week rangemaster course and by the time I finished I was on my third 66. I had advanced enough in rank by the time the L frames came out that I was able to obtain them for my patrol division. My thought at the time was that the L frame split the difference between the K and N frames. More the ruggedness of the N frame with the better DA LOP and more favorable weight of the K frame, and hopefully better reliability than the K frame. The L frames did all this, and to this day I think it is the best S&W .357 platform.
During this time the Ruger was making a name for itself. I had my PPC gun built up on a Ruger. As I advanced in PPC I converted to DA only for the whole course. That made DA LOP much more important than SA LOP. I used that Ruger in competition from '77 to '84 when various occupational responsibilities forced me to give up recreational shooting (which competition was). I still have that revolver.
Despite our experience with the K frames, one variant of which I was fond of was the 2 1/2" 66, which detectives and command personnel could carry. I decided I wanted something of that configuration for my own. Given our departmental experience with the 66s and my experience with my Ruger PPC revolver, I opted for a Ruger Security Six 2 3/4" bbl. I put on a nylon Hogue Monogrip, and a spurless hammer (since I had long since converted to shooting DA only on all my DA revolvers). Equipped this way and with me shooting DA only, this turned out to be an ideal revolver from the outset to the present.
I have long since converted to a semi auto for EDC, so revolvers are only for recreation. What I have found is that I more often take out the Ruger than the 27 for recreational (and some instructional) shooting. It just fits me perfectly.
One caveat in all this: I am not in a position to say which will survive longest with heavy .357 loads. Our issue load was the US Treasury +P 38 spl load, and that was all we could carry. Competition of course was 38 wadcutters. FWIW I don't recall any felt recoil difference between the issue +P 38 rounds I fired in department shoots relative to the 38 wadcutters I fired in competition, but my total concentration was on firing small groups. Given that we were precluded from carrying .357 rounds, I never developed an interest in firing stiffer recoil rounds which were/are harder on the revolvers. Years down the line all of my revolvers are in great shape. They have been ridden, but I can't say they have been ridden hard. One is left to determine one's personal priorities in this area, so take it FWIW.
So, which to choose. Very tough choice, and I think a very close call. I think you first need to determine what will work best for you in the types of shooting you will do. Given one poster's experience, if you will be shooting a lot of heavy loads the N frame should withstand those loads better, but I am not sure that is a settled issue. As another poster pointed out the appropriate revolver comparison is S&W K frame against the Ruger Six series, not the N frame. So, what kind of loads to you intend to shoot? The next important question is whether you shoot SA and DA, SA only, or DA only. That determination will govern which will feel most comfortable to you, will allow you the best trigger control, and will result in tiny groups downrange.
If these questions still result in a tie, then I submit you should decide based on condition. For me, I am glad I have both, along with of course, my L frame.
My 27 is the last personally owned duty revolver I carried. It retired pretty early on because we went to issued S&W 4" 66s which were mandatory carry.
I had chosen the 27 because I thought the N frame was the most rugged revolver I could carry. If the Ruger was in production then it was so early that it was not on the radar screen, at least mine.
Going from the N frame as a carry gun to the K frame was a great step up in comfort since it rode on my hip 8-10 hours a day (night actually). I also liked the shorter length of pull (LOP) for DA. I have large hands but not really long fingers. Conversely though I much preferred the LOP on the N frame for SA pull, which is what we used on the 50 yard line back then.
That was about it for the benefits of the K frame. We had a lot of problems with them. Quite a bit later I went through the CA POST two week rangemaster course and by the time I finished I was on my third 66. I had advanced enough in rank by the time the L frames came out that I was able to obtain them for my patrol division. My thought at the time was that the L frame split the difference between the K and N frames. More the ruggedness of the N frame with the better DA LOP and more favorable weight of the K frame, and hopefully better reliability than the K frame. The L frames did all this, and to this day I think it is the best S&W .357 platform.
During this time the Ruger was making a name for itself. I had my PPC gun built up on a Ruger. As I advanced in PPC I converted to DA only for the whole course. That made DA LOP much more important than SA LOP. I used that Ruger in competition from '77 to '84 when various occupational responsibilities forced me to give up recreational shooting (which competition was). I still have that revolver.
Despite our experience with the K frames, one variant of which I was fond of was the 2 1/2" 66, which detectives and command personnel could carry. I decided I wanted something of that configuration for my own. Given our departmental experience with the 66s and my experience with my Ruger PPC revolver, I opted for a Ruger Security Six 2 3/4" bbl. I put on a nylon Hogue Monogrip, and a spurless hammer (since I had long since converted to shooting DA only on all my DA revolvers). Equipped this way and with me shooting DA only, this turned out to be an ideal revolver from the outset to the present.
I have long since converted to a semi auto for EDC, so revolvers are only for recreation. What I have found is that I more often take out the Ruger than the 27 for recreational (and some instructional) shooting. It just fits me perfectly.
One caveat in all this: I am not in a position to say which will survive longest with heavy .357 loads. Our issue load was the US Treasury +P 38 spl load, and that was all we could carry. Competition of course was 38 wadcutters. FWIW I don't recall any felt recoil difference between the issue +P 38 rounds I fired in department shoots relative to the 38 wadcutters I fired in competition, but my total concentration was on firing small groups. Given that we were precluded from carrying .357 rounds, I never developed an interest in firing stiffer recoil rounds which were/are harder on the revolvers. Years down the line all of my revolvers are in great shape. They have been ridden, but I can't say they have been ridden hard. One is left to determine one's personal priorities in this area, so take it FWIW.
So, which to choose. Very tough choice, and I think a very close call. I think you first need to determine what will work best for you in the types of shooting you will do. Given one poster's experience, if you will be shooting a lot of heavy loads the N frame should withstand those loads better, but I am not sure that is a settled issue. As another poster pointed out the appropriate revolver comparison is S&W K frame against the Ruger Six series, not the N frame. So, what kind of loads to you intend to shoot? The next important question is whether you shoot SA and DA, SA only, or DA only. That determination will govern which will feel most comfortable to you, will allow you the best trigger control, and will result in tiny groups downrange.
If these questions still result in a tie, then I submit you should decide based on condition. For me, I am glad I have both, along with of course, my L frame.
Last edited:
I have several of both! The Ruger is built like a tank and is very simple to dismantle/ reassemble. The HP is an N frame (my favorite and don't laugh…more elegant) also N frame S&W's are my all time favorite revolvers! But, you won't go wrong with either choice. I'd try to make a deal on both!
OP
kingston73
Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2010
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 44
Thanks for all the responses, lots to consider. The 2 I'm looking at are both 4 inch and only 1 year apart in age. I ccw a p365 most days but also carry a 3 inch J frame at times. I guess carrying a 4 inch could be possible. I have only ever had a single six Ruger but I've had a few smith's. I liked all of them
At one time I owned both. Still have the 28.
BLACKHAWKNJ
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,213
- Reaction score
- 6,668
Yes, I have both, a 6" M-28, a 6" stainless Ruger. I have Herrett's grips on my M-28, Pachmayrs on my Security Six. My Security Six came with too heavy a trigger pull, a set of Bullseye or Trapper springs solved that.
A very tough call, I'd say get both !
A very tough call, I'd say get both !
OP
kingston73
Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2010
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 44
Turns out my choice was made for me, both were on GB and the ruger sold. So I just bought myself a 1974 model 28-2. It'll be my first N frame, looking forward to it
My first revolver was a Ruger. I'm a fan. A Security Six is a fine revolver. BUT....it's not an N frame Smith & Wesson Model 28 Highway Patrolman. 
Now go do the same poll at the Ruger Forum. LOL
S&W 28 hands down!
My choice would be easy. Four inch N-Frames fit me perfectly. Never warmed up to Ruger DA revolvers (though their SA are great). I have a 28 (top) and its prettier sister, the 27 (bottom).
Enjoy the 28...hope you like it as much as I like mine.
Enjoy the 28...hope you like it as much as I like mine.
swagmeister
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2010
- Messages
- 1,121
- Reaction score
- 1,432
It really comes down to if you want a larger or a smaller gun. Both are quality firearms. I have a Security Six that Clark, Sr. did an action job on in the mid 1970's. I have lost count of the many thousands of rounds thru it over many years with zero problems. It is a very stout revolver and handles .357's very easily with no thought of breaking something on it. As with all things these days, the Security Six has escalated in price and the days of finding one in excellent condition for $500 or less are long gone. Good luck with your decision.
John Patrick
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2021
- Messages
- 1,575
- Reaction score
- 2,465
I'm quite sure the smarter fellows on the Ruger forum would choose the Model 28. If not, they just prove why they're on the Ruger forum snd not the Smith & Wesson forum, right? Hahahaha…
Last edited:
Frank Black
Member
Maybe I missed it, but what are the barrel lengths for each?
I own and like both. Not really comparable with each other. Mid frame vs large frame. Both will hold up to magnum loads better than most shooters. Doubt you'll see any meaningful difference in accuracy. Triggers are different, won't say one is better than the other. Just different. One thing in the Smith's favor is Ruger no longer supports the Security Six platform. I think they're basically out of parts. Not that you're ever likely to need any.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 19,755
- Reaction score
- 31,497
While Ruger has certainly come a long long way, I am still not a fan of their revolvers. Their actions are stiff, clunky and heavy as are the revolvers themselves. They are strong and reliable however they are in a lower league than vintage S&W's in my personal opinion. To me it's not even a fair choice - go with a good clean M28!
Similar threads
