security six or S&Wz 19-4

[tj3006]

It is pretty clear , there is no bad answer !
One thing for sure, is the ammo makes more difference than the gun ! Light hollow points work great on people but for woods work, i would go for a 158 grain and up. A 160 grain hard cast for a day in black bear country !...tj

 

[Hatman1793]

A steady diet of 357 mag rounds will ruin S&W's model 19, plus your probably going to drop it sometimes in the woods. A better choice would be a stainless 19, aka the model 66.
Having said that, a S&W 66 would not be my choice either.
If it has to be a S&W, I would feel a whole lot better in the woods with a S&W model 28. A 686 would be my second choice.

But, having said that, (again) a tuned Ruger GP100 with their full underlug 4.2" barrel would be my priority choice. S&W discontinued their model 28 & it was never made in stainless steel. (a 627 is out of your price range)

 

[Lead Ball]

For some reason the GPs distance between the grip and triger is not comfortable to me not sure if a different grip would change that I have found a new 686 4" the price is 799.00 and the two GPs next to it are 779.00 is that a good price for the 686?

 

[OldBroad44]

For some reason the GPs distance between the grip and triger is not comfortable to me not sure if a different grip would change that I have found a new 686 4" the price is 799.00 and the two GPs next to it are 779.00 is that a good price for the 686?

For a pre-lock 686 in excellent or even very good condition, $799 is a good price in my opinion. Basically, a used pre-lock Smith 686 or 629 in excellent condition without box or papers sells for about the same as the new in-box equivalent (with the hated lock and poorer fit and finish). If the used gun has box and papers add $100. If it has box and papers and is nearly new, it generally sells for more than new equivalent by several hundred dollars. Prices vary with barrel length, with 4" being most in demand apparently. The pre-lock Smiths are simply better guns than the current production guns. Not just because of the lock but because of many changes that lowered production cost but also quality.

Re distance between grip and trigger on your GP101: I'm guessing that the grip you have does not cover or only barely covers the back strap and the distance between the back of the grip and the trigger is too small. If so, this can be easily fixed by getting a grip that generously covers the backstrap so your hand is positioned further from the trigger. The are many grip options available for the GP101. So you should be able to make the gun fit you optimally. (Alternatively, if the grip you have generously covers the back strap and the distance to the trigger is too long, try a grip that does not cover or only barely covers the back strap.) I generally try to get rubber grips without finger grooves, as the finger grooves don't normally match my fingers. If finger grooves are the only option I usually whittle them off.

 

[WAYNO]

The GP101 does not have a grip frame. It has a tenon, which Ruger offers a standard grip, or a compact grip.




Other companies offer replacement grips, big to small.

 

[titsonritz]

The GP101 does not have a grip frame. It has a tenon, which Ruger offers a standard grip, or a compact grip.
View attachment 818385



Other companies offer replacement grips, big to small.
View attachment 818384

I like those GP-100s w/o the full under-lugged barrels.

 

[OldBroad44]

Oops . no back strap on GP101. However, the rest apples. A bigger grip positions hand farther from trigger than a smaller grip.

 

[cherrypointmar]

I would take the S&W over the rugged in a heart beat . I've owned one for years , along with 586/686's . There has never been an issue with "weak" barrels . As a matter of fact my m19 will swallow anything and shoot it accurately .
If you're looking at it from a SS-blued aspect ,for a woods gun go SS . Now they did make SS m19's , but they are hard to find and aren't cheap .
What it really comes down to is what is the best feeling gun in your hand . If you can , borrow or rent what you are interested in and go from there . You might find you'd like a M610 (10mm) or something else .Ask your buddies to let you try some others and then make an informed decision , one that you made .

 

[RVTECH]

Now they did make SS m19's , but they are hard to find and aren't cheap .

That would be the Model 66 and originals are hard to find but they are out there and prices vary.

An alternative would be a 'modern' Model 66 and while not a fan of post lock Smiths I have watched a couple reviews and I am pretty impressed with them.

 

[OldBroad44]

I would take the S&W over the rugged in a heart beat . I've owned one for years , along with 586/686's . There has never been an issue with "weak" barrels . As a matter of fact my m19 will swallow anything and shoot it accurately .
If you're looking at it from a SS-blued aspect ,for a woods gun go SS . Now they did make SS m19's , but they are hard to find and aren't cheap .
What it really comes down to is what is the best feeling gun in your hand . If you can , borrow or rent what you are interested in and go from there . You might find you'd like a M610 (10mm) or something else .Ask your buddies to let you try some others and then make an informed decision , one that you made .

Your Autocorrect probably thinks 'Ruger' should be 'rugged'. My Autocorrect is annoyingly sure I mean 'river'.

The issue with the K-frame SW 19 or its SS version the SW 66 was not weak barrels. It was that the K-frame design was a bit lightly built if you shot many tens of thousands of rounds of full .357 mag loads instead of practicing with .38sp, as most people did when these models first came out. So the K frame guns could just wear out. SW responded by designing the L-frame, also a medium size frame but heavier built in multiple ways, and with an under-lugged barrel. The SW 586 and 686 are L-frame guns, blue and SS respectively. Most people didn't shoot the 19 or 66 enough to wear it out, even if they used all .357 mag loads.

I agree with the idea of SS for woods guns, which are likely to be holster carried. Holsters wear the blue off revolvers leaving them vulnerable. And I don't enjoy cleaning guns, especially under camping conditions. I prefer SS guns I can carry and handle and shoot for days and clean only at the end of the camping trip. Some folks actually enjoy cleaning guns though.

 

[Spitpatch]

"I agree with the idea of SS for woods guns, which are likely to be holster carried. Holsters wear the blue off revolvers leaving them vulnerable. And I don't enjoy cleaning guns, especially under camping conditions. I prefer SS guns I can carry and handle and shoot for days and clean only at the end of the camping trip. Some folks actually enjoy cleaning guns though."

Somehow my (blued) Security Six (see pic above) has escaped all these horrors for 46 years of very regular and VERY hard use. (And I HATE cleaning guns.)

It benefited only from judicious prep prior to any trip and the occasional wiping down when exposed to radical weather. Both of which I would entitle even a stainless gun to, knowing they do rust (my sheep rifle is stainless).

 

[greghaz]

Holly cow my head hurts too many choices I can find a new 686 for 779.00 if I can talk the boss into that maybe thats the way to go I haven't seen any older one in this area in awhile

You haven't seen a used 686 for a while because those of us who have them are keeping them...there's your answer.

 

[cherrypointmar]

RV , you're half right and I'm half wrong . The m66 is a SS m19 , but they did make the M19 in nickel , not SS .

 

[Legion489]

I agree with Cherrypointmar, try both guns and see which fits YOUR hand best, what barrel weight, barrel length, ease of operation, "feel" YOU like. Remember you can change grips easily, so if you don't like the factory grips (all my guns seem to end up with Pachmayers) it is a few extra dollars and it fits YOUR hand. All the rest is subjective to YOU.

For example, on a Colt SAA I like the feel/balance of a 5 1/2" barrel, the 4 3/4" is "faster" on the draw and the 7 1/2" has a longer sight plane. I like the 5 1/2", but if YOU like either of the other two, that is what you like and should go for as YOU are shooting it!

As far as customer service/quality control, Ruger and S&W both suck. Always has. They get "better" (sorta, "less bad" anyway) CS and get worse, get sorta better, get worse QC, but CS is always BAD, both CS/QC have taken nose dives lately because it will sell no matter what they throw out there now. If YOU have had good luck with CS/repair at either, I am happy for you, but I go by what has happened to ME, and they both are worthless (as is Kimber and Henry, Winchester is/was great). That said, I'd still go Ruger. Have some old Ruger DAs, including blued and stainless, and I prefer rugged/works every time over refined/breaks down, or last time, barrel unscrewed while firing on one, newest one the cylinder dragged and then locked up, even when unloaded, both brand new S&W guns straight out of the box.

 

[RVTECH]

It benefited only from judicious prep prior to any trip and the occasional wiping down when exposed to radical weather. Both of which I would entitle even a stainless gun to, knowing they do rust

Ditto this.

Blued guns no doubt take a bit more prep than SS but with care they can remain relatively unscathed throughout long term use and carry. I carried, packed, shot a blue M-19 for many years and it continued to look nice - until I did something really stupid once - but managed to 'soften' the blow......

 

[Lennie]

The reason Smith L frames, models 586 & 686, came into existence was high speed filming of K frames, models 13 &19 & 65 & 66, firing full house 357 loads. High speed imaging showing the frames flexing when shooting full house loads. S&W was also seeing numerous cracked forcing cones in their k frame models from full house loads. For more info, Google up "k frame 357 durability". Smith and Wesson's answer to the k frame issues was to develop the L frame series.

I would Ruger way superior to a K frame.