Was in the local gun shop and noticed the Mk III Hunter. He had one in the above mentioned barrel sizes. Very nice 22. Thinking about picking one up but couldn't decide on barrel length.
Usage is for informal plinking and some squirrel hunting. Mostly use either shotgun or 17hmr for head shots on squirrels, but might tote the hunter along too. I like the 4 1/2 inch for its more compact size and better balance, but if optics are added, the 6 7/8 inch barrel might balance better...I don't know.
Just wanted to get some feedback on those with the above barrel lengths in the Mk III and also a price check. He wants 459 for either one. Retail is 620 per Rugers site.
If you enjoyed reading about "MK III Hunter--4 1/2 or 6 7/8 inches barrel" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
February 28, 2009, 10:11 PM
I have the 4 1/2 and am very fond of it. I like the feel and balance. I don't remember what I paid for it, but that price sounds good.
February 28, 2009, 10:25 PM
I'd recommend the longer barrel. A longer barrel gives you a longer sight radius for better sighting with open sights and you get more muzzle velocity for higher down range energy. I think the added weight out front also improves balance as well. I have a MKIII678 for 50 yd plates. Accuracy is not a problem but knock down energy is. I wish I had a 10" barrel......
March 1, 2009, 08:07 PM
I will be using this gun for informal plinking and maybe taking a few shots at some squirrels and rabbits, so I don't know how much the increased sight radius will help.
Also, I'm not sure how much FPS will matter for the above either.
How about ergonomics and balance? Can anyone that has shot both give comment?
March 1, 2009, 10:00 PM
I have the 6 7/8 barrel, the stainless target/hunter. It is a tackdriver. Virtually no recoil due to the weight.
March 2, 2009, 12:04 AM
I have this firearm with the longer barrel. I thought it was ugly as heck when it came home with me, however, I now can appreciate the utility and beauty this gun has to offer. Mine is very accurate, and recoil is non-existent. It is long, though, so don't kid yourself about that. For your use, the shorter barrel may make more sense. Just buy whatever feels best in your hand. Also, this is a nice holster: http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/links/link.jsp;jsessionid=2HVP0SY3FJWIRLAQBBICCN3MCAEFCIWE?id=0012760223529a&type=product&cmCat=SEARCH_all&returnPage=search-results1.jsp&Ntt=ruger+holster&Ntk=Products&sort=all&Go.y=0&_D%3AhasJS=+&N=0&_D%3Asort=+&Nty=1&hasJS=true&_DARGS=%2Fcabelas%2Fen%2Fcommon%2Fsearch%2Fsearch-box.jsp.form1&Go.x=0&_dyncharset=ISO-8859-1&_requestid=194263
March 2, 2009, 12:18 AM
+1 on the longer barrel - VERY accurate! (It is a PAIN to clean, though.)
March 2, 2009, 01:25 AM
I have a MKII with a 4 inch barrel and a MKII Government with a 6&7/8 inch barrel. the 6&7/8 ismore accurate, but the 4 can hold it's own. I can't outshoot the 4 incher. The 4 incher does have better balance.
March 2, 2009, 01:43 AM
My brother paid $490 OTD for the 6 7/8th. I love it, but I don't have any experience with the 4.
March 2, 2009, 01:46 PM
Thanks for the input from everyone. I was leaning towards the 4" model due to the balance and that it will be a family plinker. I had concerns with the long barrel being a bit front heavy for younger shooters.
March 2, 2009, 02:06 PM
I have two 6 7/8" Rugers, a 22/45 and a Mark II Target.
The 22/45 is muzzle heavy, but I like it that way as a target gun. As a plinker, I'd probably prefer the shorter one, especially for the young and not-so-strong. The Mark II has a 2X scope on it, so it balances better with the long barrel. I've been using both as match guns, if that gives you an idea of how accurate they are.:)
However... As a plinker, it's hard to beat a 4 1/2" or 5" 22/45. They're a bit lighter, have 1911 grip angle and dimensions, and they can sometimes be had new for $250.
March 3, 2009, 12:52 AM
I like the tapered barrel "Target Model," a 6 7/8" variant that not too heavy. The pistol is a real tackdriver.
If you are going to hunt with it, you want the added velocity that a longer barrel will give you. A .22LR PISTOL has a much more pronounced "rainbow" trajectory than a .22LR RIFLE . . . and the shorter pistol barrels only aggrevate that problem.
For a lark, I once shot an "all comers" .22LR Silhouette match in our area. Any .22 (rifle) with scope, and the match was shot standing/unsupported.
However, I'm very steady with a handgun and thought it would be fun to shoot it with the red dot-sighted MkII. About 30 shooters competed, mostly with tricked out 10-22s or bolt action rifles . . . and all with scopes, but few beat me! BOY, WERE THEY PISSED . . . and next time I showed up they wouldn't let me compete with my pistol. Dang old riflemen, they didn't like getting waxed by a pistol with a red dot sight on it . . . can't say I blame 'em either, but I was just there to have FUN!
Anyhoo, I wrote that to say this . . . I went to the range several times and carefully measured the trajectory of the bullet at the standard Silhouette match distances of 40, 60, 80 and 100 METERS. I recorded the amount of clicks I had to adjust my Holosight in order to shoot at perfect P.O.A. at each of these distances, for knocking over those steel rams, chickens, etc. ain't easy with a .22 rifle, much less a slower bullet from a pistol!
Heck, if I hadn't made an error adjusting my clicks for the 80 Meter range, I might have won the danged match. That being said . . . the difference in trajectory was significant between 40 and 100 meters. The riflemen don't have much of a difference to worry about. Different with a handgun.
Yep, better go for the increased velocity and lessened rainbow with a long barreled version . . . PLUS the knockdown power you need.