Need 686 3 inch and Security Six 2.75 inch compared

[JollyOxe]

I can never find a 686 in 3 inch around in any local shops to compare with my Security Six 2.75 inch. I would like to see a size comparison between two in order to see how much larger the 686 is.

If anyone has both revolvers, could you post some pics of both so I could see? I would image others would be interested as well.

Thanks!

 

[blues7]

I don't have the Ruger but I can tell you that loaded with 7 rounds my 686+ weighs 39 to 40 ounces.

(I just happened to weigh it the other day to compare relative to my Glocks. Obviously, I wasn't comparing the firearms themselves, was just curious about the weights and I had some idle time on my hands.)

 

[357-RevolverGuy]

I have a Speed Six and a 686. I can post pictures maybe later tonight. The Six series guns are what I would say between a K and L frame. Ruger sized their revolvers in between S&W frame size. I think Ruger made that decision to offer something different that was not already out there with the competition.

SP101 = between J and K
Security Six = between K and L
GP100 = between L and N
Redhawk = between N and X

 

[MarkL_01]

I can never find a 686 in 3 inch around in any local shops to compare with my Security Six 2.75 inch. I would like to see a size comparison between two in order to see how much larger the 686 is.

If anyone has both revolvers, could you post some pics of both so I could see? I would image others would be interested as well.

Thanks!

For what it's worth, I just got a holster for a 3" L-frame that fits my 2.75" security six.

-Mark

 

[Ross3914]

They seem to be more in line with Colt sizing. Colts always tended to be a tad bigger than S&W's. Rugers tend to be much closer to Colts.

Outside dimensions isn't the only thing though. The -Six line has a shorter trigger reach than a K-frame, and that can make a huge difference in the way a gun feels. Your hands are so sensitive, that it doesn't take much.

Some people with short fingers may like the Ruger -Six over a K-frame, because the trigger reach is just more comfortable to them.

 

[BB57]

/... The Six series guns are what I would say between a K and L frame. Ruger sized their revolvers in between S&W frame size. I think Ruger made that decision to offer something different that was not already out there with the competition.

SP101 = between J and K
Security Six = between K and L
GP100 = between L and N
Redhawk = between N and X

The Model 19 was designed in an era where departments used .38 Special for practice and then carried .357 Mag, but there were numerous lawsuits that alleged that officers who practiced with .38 Special were under trained for the use of .357 Mag for carry on duty.

The end result was that departments started using .357 Mag for practice, when the Model 19 wasn't really designed for a steady diet of .357Magnum loads. That shift in the ratio of .38 to .357 loads was a contributing factor to Model 19s having issues with cracked forcing cones.

That became an issue around 1970, the point when Ruger was making the jump into the Law enforcement revolver market and they no doubt saw it as an opportunity.

Thus, I think Ruger's intention with the "Six" series DA revolvers was to make them just large enough to stand up to continuous use of .357 Magnum, while not losing the nice handling qualities of the K-frame .357 Magnum revolvers.

They were successful in that regard as the Six series is just a bit heavier than a K-frame, but not to the point of being al that noticeable.

The same logic applied with the SP101 series compared to the J-Magnum frame .357 revolvers. The SP 101 is about 5 oz heavier than a steel J-frame with the same barrel length, but holds up to a steady or frequent diet of .357 magnum loads much better than a Model 60.

---

Below is a 3" Model 13 along side a 2 3/4" Speed Six. As you can see, the Ruger's frame size is only very slightly larger than the K-frame used on the Model 13 and Model 19, but it is heavier around the barrel and forcing cone and carries more weight in the recoil shield, which mostly adds weight, not strength. The Ruger also does not incorporate side plate, which gives it a solid frame, which added some strength. Finally, the lock work parts in the Ruger were much more robust and almost never broke.

The photo on the top has both revolvers with Pachmayr Compact grips, while the latter have signature grips that make the grip frame seem much bigger than it is:

 

[regalsc]

I have read that the cast frame in the Ruger has to be larger to equal the strength of the forged S&W frame. True or false?

 

[BB57]

I've always regarded that as false for a couple reasons.

Shiloh Sharps uses investment cast receivers for their Sharps rifles and they are incredibly strong actions.

Browning switched to a cast frame on the .40 S&W Hi Power, and adopted the same frame on the 9mm models for commonality purposes. The cast frame is significantly stronger than the forged frame.

Thompson Center, used investment casting for the frames on the Contenders, and they were both strong and lightweight, given the calibers they're chambered in.

There is however a grain of truth here, as Ruger used larger fire control parts than S&W as they are also investment cast, and it was apparently easier to do that with the slightly larger parts. A side benefit of this that the resulting fire control parts are also very tough and almost never break. You just don't hear about Rugers having push off issues like S&Ws.

-----

Ruger used investment cast parts in order to produce parts that were dimensionally very close to the final specification to minimize the total amount and number of machining steps that were needed to finish the part. This was a a cost savings measure in order to produce a high quality revolver at a competitive price and doing so let them spend more time on fit and finish at a given price point.

 

[JollyOxe]

Thanks to all for the good discussion!

 

[sac-gunslinger]

I have owned several of each. The differences come down to very small details, the kind of details that just reflect personal preferences. The Smith has a nicer trigger, especially in double action shooting. The Ruger is easier to work on the action.

I have shot many qualifying rounds with each. When you are shooting you will not notice any differences. Both are stone-dead reliable and controllable. Give me either one and tell me I cannot have another pistol for the rest of my life.....I would be happy with whatever I had.

 

[357-RevolverGuy]

Here are a few pics. Sorry quality isn't that great. I took these on my phone. It's probably not a fair comparison as my 3 inch 686+ started out as a Talo Deluxe which I have since made a few mods to (gold bead front sight / fixed rear / plug / magna grips with tyler-t). I have a separate thread covering it if anyone is interested here: http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/477212-3-inch-686-ive-always-wanted.html

 

[BB57]

I have owned several of each. The differences come down to very small details, the kind of details that just reflect personal preferences. The Smith has a nicer trigger, especially in double action shooting. The Ruger is easier to work on the action.

I own three of the Six series Ruger revolvers (a 6" Security, Six, a 4" Police Service Six, and a 2 3/4" Speed Six). I also own a few Smith and Wesson K frame revolvers (Model 19, Pre-Model 10, Model 13). I also own several J frame revolvers as well as a 3" and 4.2" SP101s.

When it comes to triggers, I've concluded that there is as much variation within S&Ws and Rugers as there is between Rugers and S&Ws. You'll find good and not so good triggers in both Rugers and S&Ws.

-----

On my revolvers the Model 19 and the Speed Six, both have excellent triggers and both are very easy to stage in DA mode. My Model 19's trigger is also very good, but then so is the trigger on my Security Six. On the other hand, my pre-Model 10 and my Police Service Six are best described as "utilitarian".

 

[JollyOxe]

Here are a few pics. Sorry quality isn't that great. I took these on my phone. It's probably not a fair comparison as my 3 inch 686+ started out as a Talo Deluxe which I have since made a few mods to (gold bead front sight / fixed rear / plug / magna grips with tyler-t). I have a separate thread covering it if anyone is interested here: http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/477212-3-inch-686-ive-always-wanted.html

Thanks! These look great! There is almost no difference in the size of the two.

 

[BB57]

Thanks! These look great! There is almost no difference in the size of the two.

Hmmm...my impression was entirely different.

The 686+ with it's 7 shot cylinder looks like a moose of a revolver alongside the Speed Six.

The frame is deeper, the frame is longer, the cylinder is larger in diameter, and the full under lug barrel is heavier.

Weight wise, S&W lists the 3" 686+ at 36.8 ounces compared to 32 ounces for my 2 3/4" Speed Six.

To put that in context, a 3" Model 13 weighs 31 oz, and a 3" SP101 weighs 27 oz.

That means that there is only a 1 ounce difference a 3" Model 13 and a 2 3/4" Speed Six and not surprisingly they carry and handle very much the same (And they'll share the same holsters in most cases).

However, the weight difference between a 686+ and a 2 3/4" Speed Six is as great as the difference between an 3" SP101 and a 2 3/4" Speed Six. That is a noticeable difference when carrying it, and the additional bulk of that extra 5 ounces of steel is also noticeable.

 

[357-RevolverGuy]

I agree. They may look similar but in your hand or on your belt they will feel like two entirely different guns. The closest frame size comparison for the Security/Speed Six would probably be with a S&W mod. 66 with 2 1/2" barrel. The 686 has more in common with the GP100 than the Security/Speed Six.

 

[sodacan]

Speaking strictly in terms of aesthetics, Ruger double action revolvers are seriously ugly.

 

[rwt1405]

Speaking strictly in terms of aesthetics, Ruger double action revolvers are seriously ugly.

While I own many more K frames, the (2) Security Six and (1) Speed Six Rugers I own, are FAR from ugly to me.

As a Matter of fact, I find them to be beautiful, and can handle anything that I've thrown at them, and I anything that I can imagine throwing at them.

I also know, for a fact, that they can handle shooting loads that I would not even attempt, in my K frames.

So I guess to each, his own, and beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[357-RevolverGuy]

Some find them ugly but I don't. I like all revolvers even the Spanish copies. I find that horrendous key/lock hole on the side plate of modern Smith's the most unsightly thing ever. But Smith's do have nice lines and balance. What I don't understand is why S&W MIM triggers and hammers have to be dark colored? Ruger recently started making MIM parts on their GP100's and Redhawk's and they are shiny and bright.

 

[BB57]

It's obviously a matter of taste, or maybe era when you were raised.

I like the classic lines of a Model 13, Model 15. Model 19, Model 27, Model 29, etc with their half lug shrouded ejector rod housings. I am not a real fan of the older un-shrouded ejector rod revolvers, like the pre-Model 10. I have one and it shoots fine, but between the lack of a shroud, the skinny barrel, and the half moon front sight, it doesn't move me like the slightly newer S&Ws.

At the same time I'm not a fan of full under lug revolvers. I can tolerate it in an 3" SP101 where the extra weight actually improves the shoot ability, but in the S&W 686 series it's just adding extra weight to no useful purpose.

I outright despise the hideous styling of the S&W Pro series pistols and many of their performance center offerings. I just don't see those as being much more than oddities 30-40 years or now.

----

In that regard both the Ruger Six series DA revolvers and the classic S&W K frame pistols look great in my opinion. although I prefer the cleaner recoil shield lines of the S&Ws to the Rugers.

I also much prefer the color case hardened finish on the S&W fire control parts, in much the same way I liked the strawed small parts on a pre-WWII Luger.

The bright polished fire control parts on the Ruger revolvers is ok, but it lacks the refinement and class of a color case hardened finish.

I also don't mind the lock at all. It's not huge, it's unobtrusive, I didn't get my nose all bent out of joint because S&W added a lock, in what many saw as a political move. Sometimes it even comes in handy. If I want to go swimming on the beach and leave my revolver, it's quick and easy to lock.

Why that rather narrow set of tastes? Who knows. It's probably Dirty Harry's fault, as I saw that styling at an impressionable age.

 

[sodacan]

While I own many more K frames, the (2) Security Six and (1) Speed Six Rugers I own, are FAR from ugly to me.

As a Matter of fact, I find them to be beautiful, and can handle anything that I've thrown at them, and I anything that I can imagine throwing at them.

I also know, for a fact, that they can handle shooting loads that I would not even attempt, in my K frames.

So I guess to each, his own, and beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Obviously, you didn't really read the post.