MkIII barrels better?


December 6, 2008, 07:56 AM
I stumbled upon something this morning, and I'm in a sort of denial phase where I don't really want to believe it's true. While browsing Admin "XavierBreath" 's blog this morning (, I came upon his little write-up down the page about the KMK678G, i.e. the stainless MkII Govt. Model. In there, Xavier notes that the Govt Model came with a 25y proof target and that the pistol had its bore aligned by laser at the factory, and had 1:15 twist rifling instead of the standard Ruger 1:14 twist.

As soon as I read that about the twist ratio, I went waddling over to the Ruger site. I've been looking at rimfire pistols again lately (I sold off every gun I own several years ago, due to exceptional circumstances. I can explain, but its irrelevant here), so I'm in that mode where you hunt down info scraps. I used to own a blued Govt model that I bought for cheap due to abuse by the previous owner(s), and though it was in sad shape I loved it. When I started looking/shopping recently, I was extremely disappointed to see what Ruger had done to the ol' MkII. Mag disconnect safety? LCI? Internal lock? Not only are these new features unwelcome, they are hideously designed. Especially that LCI. :barf:

So, I've been a MkIII hater since first learning of them. Until perhaps this morning, when I discovered a possible raisin in the cowpie.

According to the Ruger website, all the MkIII pistols have an even tighter 1:16 twist ratio. While this probably won't make a practical difference except from a ransom rest or perhaps in the hands of some sick & twisted bullseye mutant, I still find this slight technical advantage to be enough to make me actually consider purchasing a MkIII (and promptly rip its PC guts out :neener: )

Am I reading this wrong? Are MkIII barrels really an improvement?

If you enjoyed reading about "MkIII barrels better?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
December 6, 2008, 10:10 AM
Or you could just buy a new barrel for a MKII, which would be cheaper and not cause you to betray your beliefs.

December 6, 2008, 03:04 PM
well, I'll admit that's an alternative I hadn't given a lot of thought. I guess a MkII lower is the same regarless of model, huh. Nothing to stop me getting an old standard model and then buying a TacSol upper?! Eureka!

hey, thanks for jogging my brain!

December 6, 2008, 03:25 PM
I"m sure you'll be happy with a Ruger MKIII, which ever one you decide upon. You can ALWAYS remover the mag disconnect and LCI if you choose to do so.
What's nice about the MKIII that you didn't mention is they are drilled and tapped for a scope base that is included. A MKIII with a Red Dot scope is the way to go especially wth older eyes.....

December 6, 2008, 03:39 PM
thanks tlen. but, can you really remove the LCI? I know you can disable it, but it's the slot cutout through the receiver that bothers me and there's no removing that AFAIK. The idea of there being a way to determine whether there's a round in the chamber without opening the action doesn't bother me so much, provided its a good design. I don't understand why they couldn't have done a 'peephole' style LCI like S&W did with the M&P pistols? Ruger's plastic lever is a P.O.S. design in my opinion, and from what I'm reading from owners, just makes the gun dirty up quicker.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
December 6, 2008, 03:44 PM
My Mark II Target Pistol came drilled and tapped (4 plug screws in the holes) with a scope base included -- however, I preferred to keep open sights.

December 6, 2008, 04:44 PM
My Mark II Target Pistol came drilled and tapped (4 plug screws in the holes) with a scope base included.......
Oops, I thought only the MKIIIs were drilled & tapped as friends who have them have had to use clamp on bases/mounts. Perhaps their MKIIs are older models.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
December 8, 2008, 02:09 PM
I would say and there are definately four screw plugs in the top of the receiver. It also CAME WITH an aluminum scope base mount, however I opted to put a rear Voquartsen sight on it (and trigger, and sear, etc).

December 8, 2008, 02:10 PM
Well, my Mark III 22/45 Bull Barrel is a very accurate pistol. I'll say that much.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
December 8, 2008, 06:29 PM
agree with you there! Test until you get the ammo that the gun really likes, and then it's an extremely accurate gun!

Also, I have NEVER had a jam, even while trying all different loads, to the tune of about 14 different brands and weights of bullets -- NOT ONE JAM or one misfire!

I would estimate I put over 500 rounds through it so far. Now that it is "dead-on" I don't shoot unless I have something to shoot at, typically a skunk in my back yard in the evening on summer nights, or woodchucks, red squirrels, chipmunks, etc, and anything that makes its home under my barn or in my yard.

December 9, 2008, 05:39 AM
1:16 is looser than 1:15 or 1:14. Read the Twist rate as 1 twist in 16 inches.

December 9, 2008, 08:09 AM
Hmm... well I looked into that and you're right, gazpacho. Still wondering why all the old regular MkII line had 1:14 rifling, the Govt. model had 1:15, and (I've since learned) the MkII Competition model had 1:16, like all the MkIII's have.

Which is better? Or is there something else to it?

If you enjoyed reading about "MkIII barrels better?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!