MK II vs MK III


PDA






vandave
October 3, 2008, 09:24 PM
Has anyone actually shot both of these and known a difference? I have the MK II slab side target and, like most, considering "upgrading". Isn't that what good shooters do? :)

If you enjoyed reading about "MK II vs MK III" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SAWBONES
October 3, 2008, 09:36 PM
I've owned three Mark IIs and currently have one Mark III 22/45.

If anything, the higher the "Mark" numbers go, the more difficult to reassemble the guns become. Otherwise, I don't recognize any practical difference, other than quality of materials degrading over the years.

Ruger .22LR semiautos are ridiculously recalcitrant when it comes to reassembly, at least when new.

The Lone Haranguer
October 3, 2008, 09:58 PM
The only changes in a MK III are a push button magazine release, a magazine safety and a loaded chamber indicator. None of these should affect the actual shooting characteristics.

benderx4
October 3, 2008, 10:30 PM
I've always heard and read that the best .22 Ruger ever made was the Mark IIs. I own the Mark III and enjoy it but it is a pain in the butt to clean.

tlen
October 3, 2008, 11:12 PM
As others might have said, the MKIII is basically a lawyered up MKII.
http://www.guntalk-online.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=934

XavierBreath
October 4, 2008, 12:04 AM
Less is often more. Sometimes "upgraded" items are really not improved at all.

The changes made to the Ruger MKII when it became the MKIII do not really enhance the firearm. They diminish it. The additional features of the MKIII add complexity, and promote apathy towards common gun handling/safety skills.

Guns are tools, and tools are useful things. Tools are the essence of form following function. A claw hammer can injure one's thumb if a person is not proficient at hammering nails. Yet nobody mounts a scope on a claw hammer. Nor do lawyers deem it necessary to add engraved warnings on hammers.

I do not understand why guns are different. Firearms safety is inherent in the shooter. Integrated locks, loaded chamber indicators and magazine safeties and especially engraved warnings will not make a ignorant person safer. Only proper education of safe gun handing skills will make him safer.

I'd keep the slabsided MKII. It's the pinnacle of Ruger's autoloading pistol design.

Savage Shooter
October 4, 2008, 12:16 AM
I have an old mk I without the stupid warning labels:neener:
Heres a little joke for XavierBreath
I'm not saying it should be illegal to be stupid I'm just saying take the warning labels off everything and let the problem solve itself.:D

cavman
October 4, 2008, 12:18 AM
Frequently when shooters are referring to upgrading their Ruger II or Ruger III, it is the trigger improvement that is often referred to such as
the Volquartsen trigger assembly.

http://www.rimfiresports.com/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=RSC&Product_Code=VC2AK

XavierBreath
October 4, 2008, 09:26 AM
Frequently when shooters are referring to upgrading their Ruger II or Ruger III, it is the trigger improvement that is often referred to such as
the Volquartsen trigger assembly.Gotcha, my bad.

The Volquartsen trigger trigger group (http://www.rimfiresports.com/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=RSC&Product_Code=VC2AK) is a great way to improve things, but if you need to go cheap, just get the Volquartsen sear (http://www.rimfiresports.com/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=RSC&Product_Code=VC2TS).

tlen
October 4, 2008, 02:27 PM
I'll add that there is nothing wrong with the MKIII models; you can always disable/remove the lawyered up parts quite easily if you choose to do so.
http://www.guntalk-online.com/service.html

jjohnson
October 5, 2008, 12:09 AM
Oh, man.... :fire:

The MK II is IMHO, the best of breed. The mag release and a couple very minor quirks can be irritating on the MK I, but that hasn't stopped me from shooting tens of thousands of rounds through mine.

My 22/45 is of MK II vintage, that is, no lawyered up stuff :cuss: like a mag safetey for whatever good THAT is :banghead: The 22/45 has worked flawlessly for a decade or so, no complaints, and one of the best shooters I've owned in 40 years.

If I ever need another Ruger .22 auto pistol, I'm going to look for another stainless MK II. Problem with those is.... most guys who buy one of 'em actually KEEP them forever. And God knows how hard it is to wear out a Ruger. :scrutiny:

None of them are hard to clean if you read the instructions and break 'em down frequently. All .22 autos collect crud. You'd be surprised what you can do with a can of brake cleaner and an air compressor, though :D

greyling22
October 5, 2008, 01:20 AM
keep the 2. or better yet, sell it to me. my main beef with the 3 is that , as a lefty, they put the magazine release in the WRONG spot.

cliffy
October 5, 2008, 01:50 AM
If I didn't know the chamber was loaded, I should stop shooting forever. At the range, it's embarrasing to pull my Mark III from its holster and FIGHT with the action mechanism to make it stay open without a magazine inserted. That is a major tiny stamped-steel lever problem to overcome: First time a Ruger ever embarrassed me due to clumbsiness of DESIGN! cliffy, the weak-fingered avid shooter

XavierBreath
October 5, 2008, 05:00 AM
Cliffy, Volquartsen makes an extended bolt release (https://www.volquartsen.com/category/16-action-trigger-components/4-mkiimkiii).

silver (https://www.volquartsen.com/product/284-extended-bolt-release-silver)

black (https://www.volquartsen.com/product/283-extended-bolt-release-black)

XD-40 Shooter
October 5, 2008, 01:32 PM
I have a MKII Ruger 22/45 and I would not trade it for anything, awesome shooter, very reliable, if I have a failure, its usally ammo related. I'm not interested in the MKIII.

tlen
October 5, 2008, 05:29 PM
I have a MKII Ruger 22/45 and I would not trade it for anything, awesome shooter, very reliable, if I have a failure, its usally ammo related. I'm not interested in the MKIII.
+1. The MKII Ruger 22/45 grip/frame is definately thicker and more compatible with a 1911 that the MKIII 22/45. Why Ruger went to a thinner grip in the MKIII 22/45 is beyond me.

SGW42
October 5, 2008, 06:29 PM
I own both a Mark II and a Mark III.

I'd prefer the Mark III not have all the junk on them added since the Mark II, but don't feel that they detract so much that if a Mark II version of what I was looking for wasn't available and a Mark III version was, that I wouldn't buy the Mark III. My Mark III Competition is still incredibly accurate and has been very reliable. As far as details...

The new mag release would be neat if it didn't cause more problems than it solved. On Competition models, the thumb rest blocks it, and I've learned to wrap my fingers around the front to get at it. It also means II and III mags aren't interchangeable, so I had to get another set of those (I like to have five or more). Also, where the mag release was on the II, is just a block of plastic Ruger used to fill in that spot. :/

Mag safety I couldn't care about, since this is a range gun, but you now need to have a mag inserted for certain steps of field stripping.

Loaded chamber indicator is fine, except that it is made of plastic, and the metal extension in the receiver makes it difficult to get at spots when cleaning the breech.

My least favorite "upgrade" is the tapered bolts ears though. During extended shooting sessions they seem to cut into my fingers more than the old untapered ears.

That's a lot of gripes but I still love it.

SGW42
October 5, 2008, 06:30 PM
Double tap, sorry.

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