Taurus .22 revolver vs Ruger mark III


PDA






Voland
August 26, 2009, 12:47 AM
I've been looking at Taurus Tracker .22 revolver 4" and the Ruger Mark III 4".

This pistol will be primarily used for small game. Basically something I can throw in to a backpack for when I go out to my friends property. I would like to be low maintenance and as accurate as possible. At some point, I would probably mount a low power pistol scope on it but I would like to retain the irons.

So basically I am hear to get some opinions. All are welcome!

Thanks!
V.

http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/images/Products/444L.jpg

http://images.wholesalehunter.com/prodpics/taurpic2990041.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "Taurus .22 revolver vs Ruger mark III" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Carne Frio
August 26, 2009, 01:24 AM
Ruger Mark III si, Taurus M94 22lr not so much. I own and love the Ruger 22lr and am neutral on the Taurus 22lr.

mesinge2
August 26, 2009, 01:34 AM
I had a Taurus M94. It is an accurate and reliable revolver, but like many 22 LR revolvers it had an ungodly trigger pull; also the Taurus had a rough gritty trigger as well.

I had a Taurus Tracker in 44 mag that had a very smooth and even trigger pull, and I always wondered why the Tracker was so different from the 94.

Shadow 7D
August 26, 2009, 02:48 AM
Mk 3 have a rep for fun pinking up to some serious competition custom jobs, If your looking for something like that you might want to consider a .38 or a 9mm auto, both cheaper to purchase used, better shot pattern if for snake, more power for larger critters.

For plinking, the way ammo is around here, I'm thinking of getting an air gun.

bangkok
August 26, 2009, 04:25 AM
I own a Mk III and it is a really fun gun, pretty accurate too. With the revolver you'll get tired of the slow emptying and reloading. I also hear to many horror stories about Taurus revolvers.

mnrivrat
August 26, 2009, 06:37 AM
Taurus Tracker is not the Model 94 by the way.

I own a Taurus Model 94 in .22 LR and a Taurus Tracker in .44 Magnum.

I have nothing bad to say about the Taurus guns I own, but I have seen some not so good ones come out of the factory and I have also seen some repair work from Taurus that was at best sub standard.

For your purpose I would likely go with the Ruger. It fits your wants better with ability to scope it for example, and with better accuracy. Chose the right Ruger model and the scope mounting will be a breeze.

NGIB
August 26, 2009, 08:20 AM
I have the exact Mk III in your picture except mine has CT grips. I also had a Taurus 94 .22 revolver for a time. While my Taurus didn't have any mechanical problems, the trigger was pretty bad - especially in DA.

The Mk III Hunter is a great shooter, well balanced and very accurate. The two you mention aren't even on the same page in my book. A revolver equal to the Mk III Hunter, and in the same price league, would be a S&W 617 - have one of these as well and it's great...

uf-engineer
August 26, 2009, 08:26 AM
My vote. MK3 and 4 spare mags. Its fun to shoot and very accurate.

Mr. Bojangles
August 26, 2009, 08:35 AM
I've go a Taurus .22 revolver, and I love it. Mine is accurate and I've had no problems with it. I realize Taurus doesn't have the best reputation, and maybe I was lucky and got a good one.
However, you can't go wrong with the Ruger.

Voland
August 26, 2009, 08:55 AM
Wow, sounds like its fairly close to unanimous...

Thanks everyone!
V.

kludge
August 26, 2009, 10:55 AM
Buckmark or S&W 22A... the 22A would probabbly be my choice for the throw it in the backback don't care if it gets scratched gun, and comes with the rail already on it (the low end Rugers and Buckmarks don't.

m47dragon
August 26, 2009, 11:56 AM
I have the M94 Taurus and the trigger was initially as described in other posts. It has continually improved with repeated firing and cleaning. It improved tremendously following a maintenance session in the ultrasonic bath. Very comfortable, pretty accurate for a 4" barrel, adjustable sights, very economical and very sturdy.

PX15
August 26, 2009, 12:19 PM
These Ruger rimfires have been made in one model or another for probably 50 years or more. I know I bought my first one back in 1970 or so and have probably owned 6-7 altogether..

Rugar Standards were the first pistols I gave my step-sons when they were young, and I just gave my last one away to a step-son, after having his and his Son's names ingraved on it.

I think these Rugers are fantastic rimfires and I would recommend them without reservation.

Another consideration in favor of the Ruger is the availability of the fine Crimson Trace Lasergrip for it.

I have no experience with the Taurus you mentioned.

Best Wishes, and good shootin'!

Jesse

maroast
August 26, 2009, 12:27 PM
I have the Ruger MKIII Hunter 6 5/8, and the Taurus M94 (not the tracker)....The Ruger is a DREAM to shoot and is VERY accurate....esp since I put a comp trigger & sear in the pistol. Its probably my favorite out of all the guns that I own.


The Taurus M94 is a neat little pistol....its really my beater gun. It comes with me when I go out for rides on my dual sport motorcycle....and I pretty much hunt bottles and cans with it in the woods shooting 22 CB Shorts. The double action pull is long and a bit rough, but the single action is nice and crisp. .....Sorry, but no input on the 22 Tracker.

tango2echo
August 26, 2009, 12:34 PM
1,000,000 to 1 in favor of the Ruger in my opinion.

t2e

Lakeshore
August 26, 2009, 12:35 PM
Own the Taurus 94 and Ruger MKIII, very fond of both especially in the current expensive (centerfire) ammo environment. The Ruger is rock steady and fires any cheap crappy ammo I feed it without a hiccup. I like the Taurus because I can shoot .22 short or long or .22LR subsonic in it. Negatives: The MKIII can be a challenge to field strip till you get the hang of it. The Taurus dbl. action trigger is indeed heavy but single action not bad and improves with usage.

scottaschultz
August 26, 2009, 12:53 PM
Lets confuse things a little more!

If you want a .22 revolver, get a Ruger Single Six.

My vote for semi-automatic .22 pistol that will accept a scope is the Beretta Neos. I don't seem to have any accuracy problems with mine! This has a 4.5" barrel but it also comes in 6".

Scott

http://i676.photobucket.com/albums/vv124/scottaschultz/Neos.jpg

riverdog
August 26, 2009, 12:54 PM
I have put a few bricks of ammo through my Ruger 22/45 and have found it to be one of the most accurate .22LR pistols I've shot. I have been less than impressed with .22LR revolvers.

MCgunner
August 26, 2009, 01:22 PM
For small game, the Ruger is my choice. I've not owned the Taurus, but own several others that are extremely accurate in their niche. But, my Mk 2 is accurate in the extreme. I have a scope on it (easily done with the Ruger, lots of aftermarket) and it will shoot 1" from the bench at 50 yards, more accurate than a lot of rifles including Ruger's own 10-22. The only more accurate .22 I have is a scoped 10" match barrel for a TC contender.

As to DA trigger pull, superfluous. Who cares? You're not going to be shooting at a 50 yard squirrel in the pine trees DA. :rolleyes: The Ruger's trigger is very good and all the Taurus SA trigger pulls I have are excellent.

But, get the Ruger, many advantages for hunting, none the least of which is superb accuracy. I don't know why it took me so long to get one, but I finally did and don't regret it. :D For me concerning .22s, Ruger's are quality, all others are suspect. I'll make an exception for the Buckmark.

I would suggest a 2x LER for your purposes. My mount replaced the rear sight which I have stashed away, but have no intent to ever use again. The gun is awesome with the scope, very accurate and amazingly fast to acquire on multiple targets while plinking, makes the gun huge fun at the range.

middy
August 26, 2009, 01:23 PM
Neither. Ruger Single Six.

JEB
August 26, 2009, 01:27 PM
BIG +1 on the Neos.

had a mkIII first and traded it for a Neos after only three days. (1 day of jammamatic shooting, and two days to clean a reasemble the danged thing!) neos is more than ready to accept a scope without messing with the factory sights, and is plenty accurate. will be using min for squirrel next week:D

MCgunner
August 26, 2009, 01:30 PM
had a mkIII first and traded it for a Neos after only three days. (1 day of jammamatic shooting, and two days to clean a reasemble the danged thing!) neos is more than ready to accept a scope without messing with the factory sights, and is plenty accurate. will be using min for squirrel next week

And, from what I hear, God help you if you need factory support or warranty work. :rolleyes: I won't touch a Beretta ever again, but that's just me.

scottaschultz
August 26, 2009, 02:48 PM
And, from what I hear, God help you if you need factory support or warranty work. :rolleyes: I won't touch a Beretta ever again, but that's just me.
Funny, I heard the same thing about Taurus!

Scott

Voland
August 26, 2009, 03:57 PM
See, thats sort of my concern... revolvers are simple and very little goes wrong with them after years of banging around in a backpack/trunk... will I have the same luck with the mark III?

bigfatdave
August 26, 2009, 05:47 PM
better shot pattern if for snakeWhy are you shooting at snakes? Leave them alone unless they pose a real and direct threat, they keep the rodent population down. Too many people have an irrational fear of snakes, and then go out and buy guns with "snake defense" in mind, not realizing that the vast majority of snakes are harmless, and the few that could actually hurt you don't want anything more than to be left alone.

Back onto the topic ...
Comparing a Ruger mkIII and a Taurus Tracker is like comparing apples to hand grenades.
If you want a plinker, get the revolver. If you want a trainer for similarly laid-out centerfire revolvers, get the revolver.
If you want a good all-around .22 autoloader, get a mkIII (or a buckmark, or a 22a, or a neos ... but I like the Ruger offering) and upgrade it at your leisure. There's a huge aftermarket for the Rugers, both in performance and ergonomics, plus the mkIII line has a scope rail included that mounts up quite securely. You might save some cash on the Ruger if you skip the Hunter model, they are mighty pretty, but unless you really like the sights on them they're not really any better than the normal barreled ones.

In the end, it sounds like you'll buy something in each category in the long run, so get whatever is happier in your hand, or whatever you shoot more accurately, and don't stress out about it.

MCgunner
August 26, 2009, 10:52 PM
I've shot snakes with bullets. If you wanna shoot one, it don't take shot.

Funny, I heard the same thing about Taurus!

Scott

Well, I ain't sure they're worse than Beretta. :rolleyes: A little tip up .22 is why I won't mess with Beretta anymore. I must say, I've also heard Smith and Wesson ain't so great. But, personal experience with Ruger, great company to deal with, no hassles. What really peeves me about Taurus is they won't just send you a part. Ruger will, no questions, and will take your word for it that it broke. In my case, it was a mag release spring on a P90. Superb people to deal with. It was in the mail box two days after I called 'em.

I own 3 Tauri, but haven't dealt with customer service. I hear they're better now days on a new gun, will pay shipping both ways.

bangkok
August 27, 2009, 12:32 AM
See, thats sort of my concern... revolvers are simple and very little goes wrong with them after years of banging around in a backpack/trunk... will I have the same luck with the mark III?
The MkIII is an incredibly robust chunk of steel! I would think you could run over it with a steamroller!

searcher451
August 27, 2009, 02:32 PM
The solution is simple: Get the one that best fits your hand and eye. To do that, you'll have to take each one out for a test-drive. Go to a range that rents guns; or invite some friends along if they own the guns in question. Take your time, run a number of rounds through them, and decide only after you know which of the two is the best fit for you.

It wouldn't hurt to rent or borrow a couple of other choices as well. You just might surprise yourself and find that, say, a Browning Buck Mark is a better fit than either of the two you've listed.

One other thing I'd do for certain: Stay well clear of any gun that uses pot metal in its construction.

Dogbite
August 27, 2009, 02:41 PM
Ruger Mark III hands down. The Mark III is legendary.

tinygnat219
August 27, 2009, 02:59 PM
Skip the Taurus unless you want a headache.

Get the Ruger. If there's one thing that Ruger builds well and hasn't really messed up it's the .22 Rimfires they offer.

bigfatdave
August 27, 2009, 06:41 PM
The solution is simple: Get the one that best fits your hand and eye. To do that, you'll have to take each one out for a test-drive. Go to a range that rents guns; or invite some friends along if they own the guns in question. Take your time, run a number of rounds through them, and decide only after you know which of the two is the best fit for you.searcher451, I am beginning to think that nobody can do that any more, the glut of "what gun for ___" threads seem to indicate that gun lending and rental ranges are a thing of the past, and we all must order guns without ever shooting a similar one or handling one in a shop. Of course, I still am willing to open up the safe for friends to test-drive something they're interested in, so long as they pick up targets and lunch*. And there are still two operational rental ranges within driving distance ... but the rest of the country seems incapable of acquiring guns by any means other than ordering them blind. Odd, isn't it?

*(I've bought the wrong ammo for shooting a friend's gun once, I'll just supply a reasonable amount if someone wants to try one of my toys out ... in the case of a .22, that may be 2-300 rounds, for centerfire more like 30-50)

Voland
August 27, 2009, 09:18 PM
Thanks everyone! One of the ranges in Dallas that I go to does rent pistols. I intend on going up there next week and trying both but this thread was mostly for my education. I value the opinion of everyone here a lot, even the naysayers... Every post teaches me something and ultimately will help me make the right choice for me.

Thanks again!

V.

bigfatdave
August 27, 2009, 09:28 PM
Thanks everyone! One of the ranges in Dallas that I go to does rent pistols. I intend on going up there next week and trying both but this thread was mostly for my education.Happy to help, assuming I was any help at all. My rantiness in post#31 wasn't specifically directed at you, by the way.
Shoot everything that interests you from that rental counter, some extra .22lr ammo and range fees would be cheap compared to the cost of a bought gun you don't like shooting!

smallbore
August 27, 2009, 11:06 PM
I own 2 Ruger pistols. A MkII Comp Target model (ss slab-side w/simmons scope) and recently purchased Mk III 22/45 (blue slab-side 4+ " bbl) for the backpack, plinking, hunting. I have been satisfied with both. The Single Six models are also nice, especially the interchangability of cylinders and muti-variety .22's you can use. The only down side I can see to any .22 revolver is speed in reloading. With pistols one can easily carry a sufficient # of pre-loaded mags, which is quicker than changing out cylinders or reaching for the box of ammo.

Taurus_9mm
August 28, 2009, 09:35 AM
I have a Taurus Tracker 970 and a Ruger 22/45. I can't say that I honestly like one any more than I do the other, but I do like both of them a lot. Each is accurate, well built and feels good in the hands.

www.gunnerforum.com
www.taurusarmed.net

Comanche180
August 29, 2009, 08:30 AM
I have a Ruger MkII Target that I love to shoot and sometimes use for bullseye. I also have a Taurus model 94 that is fairly new to me. The Taurus is fun to shoot but is nothing like the Ruger. It has a very heavy double action trigger, although in single action it is fine and it is accurate. It is a toy. The Ruger is a tool. Reloading a revolver is not nearly as quick as a semi auto.

Magichelmt
August 30, 2009, 10:03 PM
Well I have both as well and each fits into my collection well. I prefer the 22/45 for reloading speed. I take both with me to the range when ever I go. I have not had any problems with my Tracker.

herbie1
August 30, 2009, 11:21 PM
I had a Taurus .22 Tracker 6" barrel. I got rid of it within a few months. It is the only gun I immediately regretted purchasing. The trigger was gritty and the thing spat spat smoke and other small particles back in may face every time I shot it. I think the timing or cylinder/bore alignment was off.

I traded the Taurus for a Ruger MarkIII Hunter w/6" barrel, similar to what you have pictured. It is a great gun.

The scope mount that comes with the MarkIII lets you keep your iron sights. I have a 2x scope and Warne quick detach scope rings on my MarkIII. I can easily mount and unmount the scope as I see fit. I'm not sure how you would do that with a revolver setup.

The scope mount that comes with the Ruger is a bit cheap in my opinion. I installed one of Tactical Solutions Picantinny mounts on mine. After a few fitting problems the think works great.

The MarkIII is a classic. 10-15 years from now it will still be a classic. It will probably hold resale value much better than the Taurus. If you want to hand it down to your children, or gift it to someone, it would make a much better gift than the Taurus.

BTW, everything shakes loose from this gun. I had to loctite my front sight, rear sight and the scope mount.

I also have problem with the bolt holding back on the last shot. This is not too difficult to fix (I am handy enough to fix it myself), but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

H.

P.S. My impression is that Ruger's Mark series (MK I/II/III) is regarded as one of the best (or even the best) .22's on the market (excluding specialized target guns, etc.).

P.P.S They are a PITA to reassemble.

bigfatdave
August 30, 2009, 11:59 PM
P.P.S They are a PITA to reassemble. They get easier every time I do it. The reputation of impossible assembly is mostly perpetuated by first-time owners and the complaints they leave online ... which are searchable forever.

MCgunner
August 31, 2009, 12:16 AM
Why does reloading speed matter on a .22? You going into combat with it? :rolleyes: Of course, being a cap and ball fan, I think any cartridge gun is cheating. :D I only have one magazine for my MkII and don't feel the need for another. You have to load the magazine, ya know, unless you have your wife trained to do it while you're shooting. If you do, your wife is a keeper. Maybe your name is Todd Palin?

FYI

http://www.alpharubicon.com/leo/markiipike.htm

C-grunt
August 31, 2009, 06:09 AM
I have the plain jane Mark III with a 4 inch barrel and its probably the most accurate handgun I have ever shot. The thing is scary accurate. Mine also came with a scope mount in the box that keeps the factory sights. Best 300 bucks I ever spent.

Voland
September 1, 2009, 12:37 AM
Ugh... so many guns, only so much money... I am also in need of a car pistol. Thinking glock 19 or cz 75b... but it will probably have to wait...

Thanks everyone for your feedback! I really appreciate the help. I am not going to get a chance to make it out this week but this weekend... its on!

V.

stonecoldy
September 1, 2009, 12:57 AM
I have the exact same situation as Comanche 180.
I bought the Taurus 94 this year because I had $100 in Bass Pro credit, and had been shooting more .22 LR to save my stash of centerfire pistol ammo. My daughter enjoys shooting revolvers over pistols, the son likes pistols over revolvers.
I will pick the Ruger Mark II over the Taurus for handling and accuracy. Single action is OK for the Taurus, double action is pretty rough. Feels like someone dumped sand in the action. The hammer seems to be oddly angled, requiring either a grip shift to cock the hammer for single-action, or use of the weak hand to do it.
Besides the rough action, which hopefully can be remediated, would like to see the Taurus in a 3" barrel, not fully under-lugged. I think it's heavy for caliber. Not exactly a kit gun. The Ruger I have isn't light either, but handles great! I like the balance of the Target bull barrel.

soonerboomer
September 2, 2009, 01:22 AM
had the Taurus Tracker .22
It looked cool, but honestly, it just wasn't fun. Get the Ruger.

djnick101
September 16, 2009, 03:11 AM
I've had a Ruger Mark I for about 15 years or so. I've NEVER had a problem with it, with the exception of the learning curve for taking it apart and putting it back together. YouTube has a nice video for doing that.

I have 3 Rugers. This Mark I, a New Model Blackhawk .357 revolver with 6 1/2" barrel and a P-95 9mm semi-auto. None of them have ever given me any problems.

With the Mark I it's easy to take a pop can, give it a throw and "walk" it away with the Mark I.

My recomendations would be with Ruger in whatever caliber you choose. I'm waiting until I can afford a P-90 .45 then my life will be complete. LOL

hardluk1
September 16, 2009, 11:25 AM
I have a older tuarus model 94 22lr and both a 4 1/2" 22/45 ruger and a 6" mark III The triggers on both rugers new are crap. Also cost to much to light'n and smooth. Compaired to any other 22 handguns i have the taurus is a better shooter. It has a great trigger with wolf springs in it . Also both of the rugers are much more picky about ammo than any 22 i have and cost to much to do light'n the trigger pull. I retired and old colt huntsman that is today a much better pistol than either ruger will ever be.

MCgunner
September 16, 2009, 01:37 PM
That's odd. My Mk2 eats anything I feed it that says LR on it. Even the cheap stuff shoots 1/2" groups at 25 yards.

Vern Humphrey
September 16, 2009, 03:11 PM
See, thats sort of my concern... revolvers are simple and very little goes wrong with them after years of banging around in a backpack/trunk... will I have the same luck with the mark III?
I've owned a Mark II for more than 30 years, and it's still going strong. Automatics generally are eaiser to maintain than revolvers. They rarely fail, and you can strip them down completely, replace parts as necessary, and generally do everything yourself. But try replacing the hand or cylinder stop on a revolver.:what:

Ben86
September 16, 2009, 06:17 PM
My main reason for wanting to get a .22 revolver instead of automatic is because I can't stand it when a gun hates the ammo that I like. From my experience most .22 autos are picky about ammo. Other than that its mainly just a coolness factor.

Because my house is 30 minutes away from the nearest hospital I shoot all snakes on my property that I can't identify as non-poisonous. I let the cats take care of most of the rats and mice. I shoot what they don't kill. Nothing survives, resistance is futile!

Besides, snakes hardly ever eat so I doubt they do much to control the population. My cats kill at least a few every night.

justashooter in pa
September 17, 2009, 12:45 AM
some states, such as penna, do not allow the use of autoloading handguns in hunting.

RonAMOK
September 17, 2009, 11:33 PM
Another vote for the Ruger, Love my mkI, 30+ years of great fun.

NMGonzo
September 18, 2009, 12:13 AM
ruger

I miss mine ...

doc2rn
September 18, 2009, 02:11 AM
Still have the Ruger standard my dad went halves with me on when I was 11. Now 27 yrs later I am amazed it is still goin strong, and it still comes with me every range trip. As it stands at this rate it will outlast me.

practicaltactical
September 19, 2009, 04:22 PM
My Taurus is one of the few guns I regret buying. I still have it (model 94 ultralight) but only because I don't sell or trade guns very often. I wish I had bought a Ruger instead but plan on picking one up soon.

frankiestoys
September 19, 2009, 05:01 PM
I can't say too much against the Taurus 22 revolver i looked at the 357 tracker and after trying it out i bought a Ruger gp 100 ,hands down it's a better gun.
I dont own any Taurus handguns, so i dont think that you would have some of the problems that the larger cal Taurus revolvers have, but i do own several Rugers and imo they make a great value.
Buy the Ruger.

LubeckTech
September 19, 2009, 05:37 PM
I own 3 Ruger .22 autos and love all of them. DA revolvers are also fun and have a different appeal and different capabilities - the revolver handles a greater variety of ammo more easily. Taurus revolvers are very hit and miss as far as quality is concerned the only way I would consider one is if I could shoot it first.

fattboyzz
September 19, 2009, 05:49 PM
I have owned both an can tell ya that the ruger wins with me !!

the taurus was pretty accurate but its consistency went away pretty fast as the barrel heated up !

In my opinion the Ruger is THE 22lr pistol of choice ... ;)

cornman
September 24, 2009, 02:59 PM
For hunting I would suggest something longer than 4".

paperboy
October 1, 2009, 08:03 PM
Ruger MKIII Hunters are great guns, a little on the expensive side but very accurate. Don't sweat the cleaning part. Some people get nervous because of all the bad rap. My first tear down and assembly took all of 10 minutes after that about 5 min. There are great videos on the net and if you follow the book you will get get thru it just fine. Don't let the cleaning hype push you away from a great and accurate pistol.

Sig 556
October 1, 2009, 10:44 PM
Ruger Mk III Hunter, you wont regret it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Taurus .22 revolver vs Ruger mark III" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!