Ruger MK II and III?


PDA






bmars
September 15, 2008, 06:47 AM
I have seen several people in other threads say they like the MK II better than the MK III. What are the differences? Or, put another way, which do you prefer and why?

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger MK II and III?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
denfoote
September 15, 2008, 07:14 AM
I have four MK-IIs.
The only reason why Ruger came out with the MK-III was to satisfy the Liberal crap laws that state that in order to sell guns in their God forsaken states you had to have all the various Sara Brady bells and whistles!! :fire:
Useless things like a loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect!! :rolleyes:
I refer to them as Sara Brady's fondest wet dream!! :evil:
I have no use for the MK-III!! :banghead:

MCgunner
September 15, 2008, 10:14 AM
I refer to them as Sara Brady's fondest wet dream!!

Actually, that'd be confiscation of all firearms. However, since she can't get that, she wants to make life as hard as possible on us just for spite. I have a Mk2 and like it.

Meowhead
September 15, 2008, 02:10 PM
In my opinion the Mk.II is just about perfect. It's nicely accurate, damn rugged and reliable, and so on and so forth..and the Mk.III is a misguided attempt to improve on perfection. Magazine disconnect and loaded chamber indicator are not necessary features for any handgun, much less a small-caliber target pistol. What's more, it seems to me like they were added mostly for legal reasons..and that really irks me. Gun design should be determined by engineering problems, not legal ones.

denfoote: more smileys please

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger MK II and III?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!