Scalloped v/s non-scalloped Security Six

Help Support Ruger Forum:

Onty

Single-Sixer
Joined
Dec 17, 2000
Messages
427
I am considering Security Six, 6", stainless. I do have now S&W 686-3, 6", nice revolver, but I don't like its weight; almost 45 oz, IMO too much for 357 Magnum revolver. That is about 10 oz more than Security Six.

I found that Security Six comes in two versions, with scalloped shield (left) and non-scalloped one (right)

Security Six compared.JPG


I looked on internet and found in one post that top strap thickness on scalloped revolver is .250", and on non-scalloped one is .200". Is this correct? Also, is any other significant difference between Security Six with scalloped shield and non-scalloped one? Any other reason to chose one version over other?

Thanks
 
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
3,801
Location
Lemont, PA, USA 16851
I just measured 4 of mine. The stainless non scalloped and the scalloped both measured right close to 0.250 +/- 0.005 just forward of the "protective" part of the rear sight. Then I measured 2 low back (150- serial numbers - the early models), one stainless and one blued and they both measured right close to 0.240 +/- 0.005, so no major differences throughout the years.

As for one or the other, the scalloped will be a bit newer but essentially they are the same (other than the scallop), no significant differences.

IMO, no reason to pick one over the other except for prices, although the one on the left does have the Ruger oversized (target) grips which many people prefer.
 

hittman

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
11,722
Location
Illinois
Good snag….I forgot about them adding the red insert in the front site.

Think also older triggers had grooves and later triggers were smooth.
 

hittman

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
11,722
Location
Illinois
And you know …… older hammers were blued on the sides and newer ones are brushed.
More changes that I thought at first …. Went and looked at mine.
 

Cholo

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
6,485
Location
Georgia
In the OP the scalloped gun clearly has the heavy barrel. Was the heavy barrel even offered on the 6" non scalloped guns?

If Onty is looking to cut weight he might want to consider only the tapered barrels. Might shave an ounce or so.
 
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
3,801
Location
Lemont, PA, USA 16851
As you guys noted there are differences that have been done over the years (RR/WO sights, heavy barrel, stainless hammer/trigger, etc) but to me, those are changes but not necessarily significant changes. Going from the low back frame to the high back frame was a significant change. Once they went to the high back frame there were the changes as you noted (also like the trigger spring) that most people wouldn't ever notice. Ruger really didn't do anything major over the years to the hammer, cylinder, trigger assembly, barrel (yes tapered and heavy but how many average Six series buyers really even noticed that). The only other significant (?) change was to scallop the right side of the frame (for weight reduction or to use less metal (thus saving money, remember WBR was frugal 😉)

I think discussions like these are interesting, what do gun owners consider to be a significant change to a gun?
 

hittman

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
11,722
Location
Illinois
The only change I find significant is the switch from low back to high back grip.

Everything else is just tweaks or “improvements” like adding the red dot to the front site.
 

Onty

Single-Sixer
Joined
Dec 17, 2000
Messages
427
Thank you all for info! I didn't know that there is also difference in barrel configuration. IMO one oz more or less wouldn't make big difference, but going from 45 oz S&W 686 to 35 oz Security Six is a significant change. If I want to carry 45 oz of steel, I would rather take 44 Magnum SBH, 5.5".
 

Terry T

Buckeye
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
1,865
Location
NorCa.
On the fixed sight Speed Six and Service Six, the top strap is thicker on the scalloped guns. No weight reduction.
Terry T.
 

weaselmeatgravy

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
2,458
Location
Colorado native, Vermont transplant
Another minor change on the later (very late - later than the ones pictured) is that the extractor rod shroud was changed at the front to a longer gentler slope. I can only guess that was dome to make holstering a smoother operation to help reduce snags. That style can be seen in the blue gun posted here:

I remember when the scalloped recoil shield was introduced. It was touted as a change for holster designers as a positive indent for holsters that used spring retention rather than a strap & snap. But I seem to be about the only one who remembers that since every time I mention it, nobody believes it.

The scalloped recoil shield was also used on the Redhawk.
 

hittman

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
11,722
Location
Illinois
I remember when the scalloped recoil shield was introduced. It was touted as a change for holster designers as a positive indent for holsters that used spring retention rather than a strap & snap.
And I remember thinking “who cares” but of course I’m left handed so it just didn’t matter for my application.

:)
 

sceva

Single-Sixer
Joined
Mar 8, 2004
Messages
403
Location
Illinois - but I'm an Ohio Buckeye
In the :For what it's worth" department
My non-Scalloped Stainless Speed Six is .200 / .205 in the middle to front and .225 / .230 toward the rear of the frame opening.
 
Last edited:

Cholo

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
6,485
Location
Georgia
...barrel (yes tapered and heavy but how many average Six series buyers really even noticed that).
I guess I didn't fit the average LOL I bought my 4" Heavy Barrel Security Six in April '79 and it had taken me awhile to find that one. I did not want the tapered barrel. Skeeter liked them, too 😬

I'm agreeing that the average buyer didn't even care. I doubt they even knew there was a HB option.
 

weaselmeatgravy

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
2,458
Location
Colorado native, Vermont transplant
I guess I didn't fit the average LOL I bought my 4" Heavy Barrel Security Six in April '79 and it had taken me awhile to find that one.

I read about the 4" HB in some mag my dad subscribed to, probably Shooting Times, so I looked for one. That was also 1979, it was a stainless model, the first Security Six I ever bought. But I sold it along with my blue Speed Six of similar vintage after inheriting my dad's guns.

One of the first things I ever did with my 4" SS gun back in the day was drop it in a river. I was wearing my dad's old CAP flight jacket that had inside pockets, and I had the gun in one of those pockets. I bent down to release a fish I had caught and it fell right out into the water. I remember seeing it on the rocky bottom under about 6" of ice cold water and thinking, "Oh, s**t...".
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
2,340
Location
Alexandria, LA USA
Bought mine in 1980 for a duty sidearm and didn't know it was a 4" HB until someone here pointed it out once when I posted a photo.
I really liked the guns profile and handling characteristics.
For a carry weapon I would suggest the shorter barrel.

BTW- WMG has a 6" on gunbroker right now, if you want a good reference.
 
Last edited:

Uncle Howie

Buckeye
Joined
May 28, 2004
Messages
1,212
Location
MN
Bought mine in 1980 for a duty sidearm and didn't know it was a 4" HB until someone here pointed it out once when I posted a photo.
I really liked the guns profile and handling characteristics.
For a carry weapon I would suggest the shorter barrel.

BTW- WMG has a 6" on gunbroker right now, if you want a good reference.

If you want a REALLY good reference, buy WMG’s revolver, and add it to your collection! 😆
 
Top